You Are What You Eat
Dear Readers,
Given that I proposed a food issue
more than two years ago, it is my great
pleasure to finally present to you the
Politics of Food. While the culinary and
gastronomic—the world of foie gras and
Big Macs—might seem out of the norm for
the Harvard Political Review, this cover
in fact epitomizes the kind of politics that
lies at the heart of our mission; it goes far
beyond the daily tracking polls and horse
race of cable news. At the HPR, we believe
that politics, broadly construed, touches
and shapes every human endeavor. And, of
course, few are more basic than eating.
It is amazing how intricate this
most fundamental of human activities
has become. We take so much of the
sustenance and flavor of food for granted,
but it was only a few hundred years ago
that conquistadors brought the tomato
to Europe and Asia. Since then, stunning
advances in agricultural technology,
including the Green Revolution, have
made possible a world that can sustain a
staggering seven billion people.
Developed economies also owe much
to increasingly efficient agricultural
sectors, which have freed citizens to
pursue education and innovation in other
industries. And today, globalization has
brought American fast food across the
world and made fresh foods more available
than ever before.
The human story of food, then, has
largely been one of continual progress:
better food, more food, safer food. Yet,
however far we’ve come in promoting
sustainable agriculture or in tackling the
obesity crisis in America, the story remains
one of glaring failure. Some 900 million
people go hungry every day, and one in
four children in the developing world is
critically underweight.
These are often the statistics of guilt
and dismay, and they should be. But this
year, they are also ones of hope. Though
the absolute number of malnourished has
increased in recent years, as a proportion

of the world population, the hungry have
dropped from 35 percent in 1970 to just 16
percent in 2010.
Most promisingly, developing countries
are finally beginning to recover from the
food crisis of 2008 and the global economic
slowdown. In their combined wake, food
prices shot up, millions went unemployed,
and credit and aid flows contracted. We
are, today, exactly where we were a decade
ago: 16 percent of the world remains
hungry.
But now, we have an unprecedented
technological capacity to end hunger. Bill
Gates has invested smartly in research
on disease-resistant grains and called for
a digital revolution in using genetically
modified foods and satellite imagery to
improve farm yields. While these policies
will doubtlessly save lives, extreme hunger
is not a technological problem; there is
enough food to feed the world. The calories
needed by the world’s hungry could be
provided with one percent of the global
food supply. At its core, extreme hunger is
about politics. Nobel laureate and Harvard
professor Amartya Sen once wrote, “there
is no such thing as an apolitical food
problem.”
We can end extreme hunger in our
lifetimes. But in our age of technological
miracles and government dysfunction,
it is, ironically, more politics, not more
technology that will be the answer. It is no
coincidence that the rise of capitalist China
was the greatest decrease in malnutrition
in human history. Economic growth is
the be-all and end-all of solving extreme
hunger. To finally feed the world, then,
we need strong governments and sound
economic policy. And that’s all politics.

Jonathan Yip
Editor-in-Chief

OPENING SHOT
Total HUDS
employees.

650
246
160

26,500
Pounds of food waste a week.

15
$36,821,425
Full-time HUDS
employees in the
Local 26 Union.

Part-time HUDS
employees in the
Local 26 Union.

Loyal E. Horton
Awards won by
HUDS.

Board payments received by HUDS in 2011.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DINING BY THE NUMBERS
$4,677,389
Crimson Catering sales in 2011.

$9,576,790
HUDS retail sales in 2011.

1%, 4%, 5%

8%

Vegans, students with food allergies, and students with
food intolerances at Harvard College.
Food allergies are immune responses.
Food intolerances are digestive ones.

3. To make the dough, use
1 cup of flour,
½ cup of powdered brown sugar,
4 tbsp of baking powder, or baking
soda if you prefer, and
1 stick of unsalted butter with salt.

3. Grease a pan and put the Cuisnart on
high.

4. Bake until de-electable.

Michelle Obama’s
Carrots:

4. Set water on high ecstatic boil and
then let it simmer until lukewarm.
5. Mix all the ingredients we talked
about thoroughly and put in the oven.
6. Wait to serve. Keep waiting.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5

FOOD

POLITICS OF FOOD
Beatrice Walton

I

n his 2008 book In Defense of Food:
An Eater’s Manifesto, Michael Pollan
advised people to restore simplicity
to food practices. Pollan’s message,
clearly encapsulated as, “Eat food. Not too
much. Mostly plants,” resonated strongly
with the myriad groups and differentiated
movements that have morphed into “the
food movement.” In stressing simplicity,
these recent efforts at food reform have
differed from their predecessors by moving past the politics of food production,
regulation, and inspection. They focus
instead on the diverse ethical, cultural,
environmental, and health implications
of food. Yet, despite that broad focus, the
recent food movement is inherently political. By challenging us to slow down and
carefully consider the consequences of
food consumption and creation, the movement and its crisscrossing components
challenge us to rethink the role of government in the new “politics” of food.
Though the movement often strives
for simplicity in food practices, its debates
hardly have narrow scope. In one subset of

6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

food politics, health and lifestyle concerns
drive efforts to change America’s “food
culture” (see p. 14) and render its defining
practices more sustainable. This has given
rise to campaigns promoting gardening,
composting, healthy cooking, and food literacy. Likewise, as Americans continue to
struggle against diet-related illnesses, government health experts are tasked with
balancing the country’s needs for greater
access to quality food (online article) and
limiting unhealthy food in programs such
as school lunches. This debate is central to
efforts to reform the food stamp program,
where ensuring positive health outcomes
is more important than ever, given that
one out of every seven Americans currently uses the program (online). In these
instances, the food movement has stressed
the importance of fostering positive relationships with healthy food.
Elsewhere, there is concern about how
governments impact agricultural practices. From subsidies in the U.S. Farm Bill
(p. 10) to preferential trade policies for European agricultural producers in the EU’s

Common Agricultural Policy (online),
debate as to which crops should be supported and what effects those preferential
policies have on developing foreign markets. Genetically modified crops, and their
potentially controversial environmental
effects, are also included in this discussion
(p. 12). Furthermore, political moves to
support agriculture at the expense of natural resources have recently come under
fire, as with the Florida Everglades (p. 16).
Ultimately, moves towards sustainable,
grass-grazed, cage-free, and organic foods,
as well as improved food access and culture, form the backbone of the modern
food movement. Still, as China’s example
shows (p. 7), oversight is still necessary,
particularly when concerning the deceptive food-marketing tactics of corporations in the developing world. If there
is one overarching goal that everyone in
the food movement agrees on, it is avoiding exporting past mistakes of the United
States’ unsustainable and unhealthy food
practices abroad.

FOOD

EXPORTING
OBESITY TO
CHINA

Will China Get Fat Before it Gets Rich?
Jason Gandelman

W

ith the American public increasingly wary
of obesity and diabetes, sales of unhealthy
food products in the US have slowed over the
past few years. Nevertheless, the profits of
American food corporations continue to grow, due in large
part to the corporate focus on emerging markets. Particularly
in China, where regulation is limited and susceptible young
consumers abound, American food corporations have been
ambitiously and deceptively promoting their products.
Though the first American fast food restaurant only
opened its doors in China in 1987, an ACNeilson survey reports that 97 percent of the Chinese population has already
eaten at a fast food restaurant. With this rise in consumption of Americanized “High in Fat, Salt, and Sugar” foods in
China, the childhood obesity rate has climbed approximately
eight percent per year. Currently, 16 to 20 percent of Chinese
urban children are considered clinically obese. This figure
foreshadows a major public health crisis in the most populous nation on earth.
Childhood obesity in China is a result of the predatory
tactics used by American food corporations to capitalize on
the Chinese market. These corporations have driven con-

sumption in China by advertising heavily to children and dismissing scientific criticism. According to Christine Chester
of Corporate Accountability International, such strategies
indicate that “Big Food is following the example set [decades
ago] by Big Tobacco.” It is imperative that governments learn
from the past and set policies to curb the health disaster created by the rise of fast food consumption in the developing
world.

EXPORTING ILLNESS: CHINA AS A “PROFIT
CENTER”
In its latest financial statement, Pepsico CEO Indra Nooyi
remarked that, despite “challenging conditions in the North
American beverage market,” Pepsico’s income has increased
18 percent over last year because they “continue to enjoy
robust top-line growth in key emerging markets.” Likewise,
Yum! Corporation, the owner of KFC and Pizza Hut, now
makes far more profit in China than it does in the US. In the
third quarter of 2010, Yum’s China sales hit $1.2 billion, up
20 percent, while US sales sunk 8 percent.
In their search for new markets, American food corpora-

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7

FOOD

tions have shifted a burden of disease
from the
American public onto the Chinese people as the tobacco
industry did decades ago. Harvard professor Frank Hu
notes that since the Chinese market opened up to American
corporations, the health consequences have been staggering. In only two decades, the number of type II diabetics
has grown ten fold to 95 million. Harvard professor Arthur
Kleinman explains that while American corporations have
increasingly “looked to China as a profit center,” in recent
years, the social cost of this profit has been quite high.

JOE CAMEL: ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN
Using tactics similar to the tobacco industry, whose Joe
Camel icon was found in a 1991 study to be recognizable by
a majority of schoolchildren, American food corporations
have been heavily promoting their icons in China. Spending
nearly 750 million renminbi ($119 million) to push its Colonel Sanders’ iconic image, KFC was the number two television and print ad buyer in all of China in 2008. McDonald’s
created a reality television show in the run-up to the 2008
Beijing Olympics with the help of the Chinese government
that implied that the healthy children on screen were fans of
McDonald’s.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for such
ads to be banned from American television sets based on
evidence that strongly links the ads to childhood obesity. In
China, however, there is no such group fighting these ads and
the public is largely unaccustomed to battling obesity. According to Hu, many parents still hold the traditional belief
that a chubby appearance is healthy. Food corporations have
seized on China’s one-child policy and the idea of China’s

8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

“little emperors.” They have urged parents to lavish their
single child with food rewards.

THE MARLBORO MAN: ENCOURAGING
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND RISK
But the ad blitz does not stop at children. American food
corporations have also targeted the teen population by subtly
promoting the old drum-line of the tobacco industry that
“freedom and choice are inextricably linked.” According to
Harvard professor Alan Brandt, the tobacco industry made
this argument by employing the Marlboro Man, “at a time
when men were wearing suits, the icon for the cigarette
would become the cowboy, out on the range, by himself…
which harkened to a notion of autonomy. People will tell you
bad things about cigarettes, but you make your choice.” The
subtlety of this message also resonates with the findings of
a 2002 McDonald’s brand imaging study in China that found
customers preferred McDonald’s because “you can have your
own choice” and “choose freely” from the menu.
This type of advertising coincides with what Kleinman
defines as the new Chinese generation’s neo-liberalist construction of the self as being “a consuming self, desiring for
material goods—one of which is food.” Indeed, this young
generation believes that freedom and choice in consumption
are linked. A recent survey by the China Mainland Information Group of Chinese teens found that over 50 percent
believe determining what they buy themselves is the most
important thing about shopping. Ironically, the extent to
which these teens truly make independent decisions is questionable, as 50 percent also agreed with the statement that
they were generally influenced by advertising.

FOOD

FOOD CORPORATIONS
HAVE SEIZED ON CHINA’S
ONE-CHILD POLICY AND
THE IDEA OF CHINA’S
“LITTLE EMPERORS.”
“SAFE-CIGARETTES”: CORPORATE RESPONSES TO CRITICISM
Not only have American food corporations advertised
shrewdly in China, but they have also advertised in ways that
are purposely deceptive, similar to how the tobacco industry
misconstrued scientific revelations in the 1950s. In response
to new evidence that their product caused cancer, the tobacco industry disseminated misinformation by releasing
ads with doctors’ testimonials and ads claiming that “more
doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” Strikingly,
McDonalds is now following this same pattern, generating
misinformation in China about the healthiness of eating beef
to encourage the Chinese to consume a meat which has never
been part of their traditional diet.
According to a 2006 Modern Weekly interview with Gary
Rosen, McDonald’s Marketing President in China, the company has commenced a long-term “beef education” campaign
targeted at children under the slogan “Do you have enough
beef?” McDonald’s invites children to join the “Beef Club”
online. More disturbingly, McDonald’s has hired nutritionists to endorse the nutritious qualities of beef. Rosen even
boasts that “nutritionists in China, particularly the Ministry
of Health, all publicize the need for Chinese to insert more
protein in their diet.” McDonald’s has fabricated the idea that
beef should be an essential dietary item. According to scientific consensus, increased red meat consumption is linked to
cardiovascular disease and increased risk of mortality.
As the science became overwhelming, the tobacco industry famously circulated its “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in 1954 where they, “accepted an interest in
people’s health as a basic responsibility” and announced the
formation of the tobacco industry Research Council. This is

strikingly similar to what KFC has announced on in China as
its “New Fast Food” strategy. In this flier, KFC acknowledges
the “emergence of a worldwide overweight and obesity phenomenon” and announces its establishment of a “food health
inquiry committee.” While KFC has added a few vegetable
items to its menu, the most popular meals still include up to
1600 calories. Washington University professor Peter Benson
writes that this strategy of “acknowledgment that a problem
exists” and “symbolic gestures of recompense or amelioration” are common tactics that are not intended to make a
substantial difference.
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: SOLVING THE EPIDEMIC
Should American food corporations take responsibility
themselves or are they simply giving the Chinese consumers
what they want: more modern choice? As Brandt explains,
the question of freedom and risk versus regulation in the
marketplace is still “one of the essential debates in American
political culture.” Despite this, both Republicans and Democrats have largely united against tobacco industry tactics by
acknowledging the value of accurate, and non-deceptive,
information to inform consumer decisions and achieve the
best market outcome. The tobacco industry’s actions in the
past and the food industry’s actions today deprive consumers of knowledge to make informed choices. While the food
industry can continue on the path followed by the tobacco
industry and create a deadly legacy in the process, the food
industry can work to create real consumer freedom by removing deception and embracing scientific information. The
American food corporations have urged freedom of choice.
Now it is time for them to make one.

very five years, Capitol Hill
authorizes funding for American
agricultural policy through a concoction of tax credits, regulation, and
developmental programs. Most recently,
in 2008 Congress passed a 700 page farm
bill, whose contents impacted food prices
paid by American consumers and global
commodities markets. Though originally
narrow in scope, the bill evolved into a
monolith encompassing everything from
food stamps and school lunches to direct
subsidies and conservation initiatives.
While contentious, farm bills have historically benefited many American farmers
and stabilized food prices. Nevertheless,
the farm bill has potentially negative
international consequences, something
the United States must consider as changing global demographics strain our agricultural system.

THE 2008 FARM BILL
The modern farm bill dates back
to 1933, when Congress passed the
Agricultural Adjustment Act amidst the
Great Depression and Dust Bowl. Corn
prices plummeted and demand became
almost non-existent, leading President
Franklin Roosevelt to implement farm
assistance “to rescue American agriculture.” The bill reduced crop surpluses
by paying farmers to leave their fields
fallow and destroy crops and livestock to
raise prices. Since then, the Farm Bill has
evolved into a complex legislative item
and provides the basis for America’s agricultural dominance.
Its most recent edition, the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
allocated $288 billion over a five-year
period. Over 70 percent of funding was
directed towards nutritional programs
like food stamps and school lunches, and
more than half of remaining funds were
subsidies for commodities.
Yet, because farmers have high
amounts of capital invested in every
growing season, crop insurance has

10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

The farm bill would slow consolidation of family farms like this one in Fergus Falls, MN.

become the most vital program of the
farm bill. Before the advent of federally subsidized crop insurance, farmers’
livelihoods were subject to the whims
of nature. Fluctuating weather patterns
could render a farmer’s entire yearlong
effort useless. According to Food Fight:
The Citizen’s Guide to a Food and Farm
Bill, many farmers “can’t buy enough
insurance” because private insurers are
often unwilling to take on such risk, leading the federal government last year to
spend $5.2 billion on crop insurance.
However, the future of federal spending on agriculture programs is far from
certain in the midst of deficit reduction
efforts. The new Republican majority
in the House has sought to cut government spending across many programs.
The current farm bill will expire this
September and some farm interest groups
are even worried Congress will not
renew the bill and that programs will see
automatic funding cuts. According to a
statement given exclusively to the HPR,
Congressman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.),
the ranking member of the House
Agriculture Committee, said “it’s going

to be a tough year” to pass the farm bill.
Peterson and other committee leaders
already proposed $23 billion in farm bill
cuts to the failed debt Super Committee,
but there is still a lingering concern that
election year politics will prevent renewal. Peterson acknowledges, “we’ve passed
a farm bill in an election before, but it is
difficult.”

THE MODERN FARMER
Tracing the evolution of the American
farmer reveals much about the parallel
development of American agricultural
policy. In 1950, there were 5.38 million
farms in the United States, and the average farm was 213 acres. Since then, the
number of farms has been slashed to
around two million, while the average
size has doubled. Today, truly profitable
farms are generally larger than 2,000
acres, capital which most Americans cannot afford.
According to the Department of
Agriculture, “fewer than two percent of
Americans farm for a living today, and
only 17 percent of Americans live in rural

FOOD

areas.” This statistic is indeed a far cry from Jefferson’s ideal of
a republic where the yeoman farmer constituted the bedrock of
American society. Many economists attribute this trend to technological growth and increased productivity with scale.
Some denounce this trend. Hilde Steffey, program director
for Farm Aid, a group dedicated to supporting family farms,
tells the HPR that Farm Aid’s mission is to, “keep every farmer
we can.” Farm Aid issued a report to Congress stating that, “far
from Wall Street, family farms are creating real wealth, producing real value, [and] growing from seeds and sunlight a product
that nourishes us both psychically and economically.” They
argue that supporting decentralized family farms is essential to
vibrant rural communities.
However, the modern agricultural system has transformed
the perspective farmers take on their livelihood. To compete
in an increasingly complex domestic and global market, the
contemporary farmer has become a technocratic businessman
that stays abreast of recent advances in farming technologies.
Jonathan Piekarski runs a 1,600 acre family farm in Fergus Falls,
Minnesota, and his encyclopedic knowledge of global commodity prices and agricultural news underscores this development.
For example, Piekarski observes how the current drought in
Argentina, a large corn producer, has raised the global price of
his crop.
He explained to the HPR how agricultural policies from
Washington affect his daily life. When Piekarski was involved
with Future Farmers of America during high school, the farm
bill’s programs were touted as keeping, “rural America vital.”
Since then, the farm bill has done little but slow the consolidation of America’s family farms. Yet he remains an advocate for a
strong farm bill, acknowledging the stabilizing effect on prices
and supply, and highlighting the benefits of the crop insurance
program. He notes, “U.S. farmers feed the world... [and] the goal
is global food security.”

THE INTERNATIONAL TAKE
However, farmers from other countries rarely commend
U.S. agricultural policy, viewing subsidies as anti-competitive.
Indeed, some argue that subsidies have allowed American farmers to pursue dumping policies where they flood developing
countries with cheap crops in a monopolistic fashion. In 2002,
some of these issues came to the forefront when Brazil charged
the United States with violating World Trade Organization
guidelines and other multilateral trade agreements with its cotton subsidies.
A recent rise in global commodity prices has tempered these
disputes, but also created problems of another kind. Randy
Schnepf, an economist and specialist in agricultural policy for
the Congressional Research Service, told the HPR that, “third
world countries are facing high prices because a lot of them are

importers of food.” Moreover, he added that many governments
“don’t allow global prices in rural areas, so farmers can’t benefit
from the high prices.” This mismatching of supply and demand
creates an imperfect pricing system, and even slight changes in
prices are calamitous for people living on mere dollars per day.

POSSIBLE REFORMS: A FOOD BILL?
Many different proposals have arisen to reform the farm
bill. Subsidies have generally declined over recent years, but the
government still protects niche industries like sugar and rice.
Furthermore, because some food policy items may violate international trade agreements, policymakers have additional incentive to make reforms. Direct payments, sums of money paid to
farms regardless of the year’s profits, are among the most controversial programs in the farm bill, and cost the federal government $4.9 billion last year. According to Congressman Peterson,
“Direct payments are tough to defend, especially now when the
agricultural economy is doing so well...[they] will be gone” in
the next farm bill.
Some have argued for progressive subsidies, which would
involve subsidizing poorer and smaller farmers instead of agribusiness. This aligns more closely with the goals of the original
farm bill, but would also face challenges. Overall, many agriculture policymakers and farmers agree that an adequate safety net
must exist for farmers, which stabilizes agricultural supply for
the American public.
Policy recommendations put forth by Farm Aid emphasize,
“Family Farm-Centered Food Systems,” postulating that food
should be grown and consumed locally. Steffey claims that
beef cattle are often transported from Maine to Colorado for
slaughter and processing before being sent back to Maine for
consumption. By enforcing stricter anti-trust laws against large
meat-packers and providing funds to rebuild local granaries
and processing facilities, the farm bill could help communities
eat more of what they grow. Another step in the right direction
would be amending federal farm loan programs that prevent
organic farmers from accessing credit because they are classified as “risky.” These reforms would perhaps enable large-scale
and local agricultural production to successfully coexist.
Domestically, the farm bill has many positive consequences,
providing a safety net for America’s farm communities, nutritional programs for the hungry, and a steady food supply for
consumers. However, the farm bill hearkens back to what we
eat, and writer Daniel Imhoff argues, the farm bill is really a
“food bill.” America’s farmers are the most productive, innovative agricultural specialists in the world. We place our food
orders to them through the farm bill, which will shape the
future of farming, and the food and prices we find at local grocers.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11

FOOD

FRANKENFOODS
AND THEIR FARMERS
Sandra Korn

ATTATAGACTCACTACTTATAAGTCAACCCCCACGCTAGTCAACTA

H

umans have been genetically modifying foods since the
beginning of agriculture by simply selecting crops that
are nutritious and have high yields. With the recent advent of transgene technology, scientists have been exploring new
ways to modify a plant’s genes without relying on the slow process
of artificial selection. The development of these “genetically modified organisms,” has promised an environmentally sustainable
and efficient way to increase food production. Activists, however,
have raised concerns regarding potential environmental risks,
health dangers, corporate monopolies, and globalization. Determining the market and social factors influencing the complicated
politics of genetically modified food requires a close analysis of
the promises and consequences of biotechnology in areas such as
the United States, India, and sub-Saharan Africa.

PROMISE AND REALITY
The first genetically engineered food crop introduced for
public consumption was the Flavr Savr tomato, which contained
a gene to slow the ripening of the tomato to allow the produce to
retain its color and flavor while sitting on supermarket shelves.
Although the Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA in 1994,
it was taken off the market in 1997 due to insufficient profitability.
Over the next ten years, however, funding was increased for the
development and implementation of genetically modified crops,
ranging from herbicide-resistant soybeans to insect-resistant corn.
Proponents of biotechnology have long touted the potential
societal benefits of genetically engineered crops for both the United States and developing countries. For example, Calestous Juma,
Harvard Kennedy School professor and former executive director
of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity believes that biotechnology, broadly defined as “technology applied to biological
systems,” should define the future of global crop production in a
“second Green Revolution.” In a publication entitled “Feeding the
Next Generation: Science, Business, and Public Policy,” he wrote

12 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

that biotechnology “has the promise of leading to increased food
security and sustainable forestry practices.” Juma and other advocates note that biotechnology can increase environmental sustainability of food production, decrease pesticide and herbicide use,
and increase food stability in regions prone to pests and drought.
Biotechnology has not been controversial. Markets for genetically modified foods have raised many concerns regarding
environmental impact, human health, and corporate control of
agribusiness. These concerns have inspired significant dissent
from small farmers and activists in the US.
Transgenic food crops are made by inserting genes from different organisms that confer various desirable traits such as resistance to pests. Because of these traits, transgenic crop populations
can be more virulent than wild-type plants. Conservationists fear
that transgenic populations may take over and replace wild-type
populations. In addition, consumer advocates have expressed numerous health and safety concerns regarding genetically modified
foods, noting that the health implications of ingesting transgenic
materials have not been the subject of any conclusive long-term
studies. Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology
Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School, notes that although the
US Food and Drug Administration considers genetically modified
foods safe for human consumption, its investigations may have
failed to address concerns that are inherently unique to transgenic
organisms, “Maybe there are differences that we don’t know how
to look for.” Jasanoff says that the US government’s regulation of
genetically modified foods for the past decade has been informed
by the “high-level administrative decision that the government
was going to assume that biotech products were the same as other
products.”

ogy corporation, produces the huge majority of transgenic seeds
used in the US and across the world. Its most successful products,
“Roundup-Ready” soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beet, and cotton are resistant to an herbicide called RoundUp, which is also
produced by Monsanto. RoundUp-Ready crops make weed-killing
easier for farmers, but also coerce those same farmers to depend
on Monsanto’s seeds and RoundUp herbicide, raising concerns
about corporate monopoly and decreasing the financial viability
of small organic farming. Laura Resnick, who works at a small
sustainable farm, notes that consumers who do purchase organic
food usually make that decision deliberately, “The people who
come to farmers’ markets are knowledgeable about GMO and
they want to get the majority of their food from as local and sustainable a source as possible.” Organic produce may be prohibitively expensive for other consumers, however, drawing them to
supermarkets instead of farmer’s markets.
Signe Porteshawver, a consumer activist and farmworker,
notes that neglecting to take environmental impact into account
can drive food prices to artificially low levels. “In fact,” she says,
“sustainable food captures the actual price. In sustainable food,
what we pay for is the externalities: the environmental cost, the
dead zones.” Additionally, government farming subsidies often
compensate large factory farms at the expense of small farmers.
Porteshawver believes that government-funded incentives leveraged through subsidies could incentivize consumers to purchase
from small farmers.

nology must be balanced with the concerns for the livelihoods of
small farmers. She notes, “Can biotech be effectively used to improve agriculture? Yes, for sure. Will it be the kind that’s sensitive
of human means of production? That’s a different question. Only
if there are scholars and activists and others who join together
to say that agriculture is a fundamentally social activity and you
can’t simply wrap it up into the model of technological production.” Because of this, attempts to institute genetically modified
crops in developing countries have faced objections by not only
environmentalists but also anti-globalization advocates.
Dr. Juma argues that, far from globalizing, biotechnologies allow developing countries to engineer for economic independence
and food security. He warns, “One of the most popular myths is
that this research is supported by foreign firms seeking profits.
The evidence points in a different direction. Much of the research
is locally-driven and inspired by the search for solutions to local
challenges.”
Dr. Jasanoff, however, disagrees. She told the HPR, “When
you look at funding programs in Africa and India, I think you
would find the fingerprint of the multinational wherever you
go.” For example, an Indian company named Mahyco developed
a pest-resistant transgenic eggplant called BT brinjal. Mahyco, a
partner of Monsanto, attempted to bring the eggplant to commercial production. In 2010, the Indian government instituted a
moratorium on BT brinjal deployment in response to mobilization by Indian activists and farmers.

GM AND DEVELOPMENT

With concerns regarding the environment, human health,
corporatization, and globalization, there is valid reason for small
farmers in both the US and in developing countries to object to
the spread of GM crops. These crops, however, also hold huge
promise for a more sustainable and more productive agricultural
future. As Addie Rolnick, a senior at Harvard writing her thesis on
the politics of genetically modified crops in India has learned, any
decision about biotechnology regulation must take many factors
into consideration. Rolnick notes that a productive discussion
about GM foods must “move forward in a way that looks at the
details and the specific issues at stake.”

Issues of environment, health, and corporate control extend
to the developing world, where GM crops have been applied to
help resource-poor farmers increase nutrition and crop yields in
Indian and some African countries. Proponents of biotechnology
argue that these technologies will increase farmers’ self-sufficiency and prevent famines.
At times, biotechnologies that originate in the US can transform local agricultural economies in developing countries in
harmful ways. Dr. Jasanoff argues that the promises of biotech-

“When you look at funding programs
in Africa and India, I think you would
find the fingerprint of the multinational
wherever you go.”

ny attempt to define American
food culture leads, inevitably,
to a realization that no singular,
overarching food culture exists in America. Harvard professor Joyce Chaplin,
who teaches a course on American food
history, explains, “One of the big points
about American food culture is that there
isn’t one.” Chaplin is not indicating that
America has no food culture. The operative word here is certainly one. Instead,
America’s diverse gastronomical landscape, formed over the years by a steady
influx of immigrants, draws from a variety
of food cultures, with origins around the
globe.
The diversity of American food
cultures and practices can be used as an
asset in efforts to solve fundamental environmental, social, and health dilemmas
facing America today. While America may
lack a unifying food culture, there are certainly food practices that span all genres
of American cooking, many of which are
not only unhealthy, but damaging to the
environment.

14 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

THE WRONG INGREDIENTS
FOR THE WRONG RECIPES
A defining characteristic of food in
America is the overemphasis placed on
meat. According to Michael Romano,
named Best Chef in New York in 2001
and who has studied cooking around

the world, one fundamental difference
between the US and other nations is that,
“Nowhere [else] in the world do you see

such a massive consumption of protein in
daily diets.” As he explained to the HPR,
raising livestock exacts a heavy toll on
the environment and is unsustainable in
the long term. Due to the United State’s
large size and space to cultivate livestock,
Americans have been able to escape these
problems and enjoy a food culture based
largely on the consumption of meat.
Furthermore, many Americans, when
considering food, often forget about seasonality. Through her travels in Southeast
Asia, food journalist and blogger Karen
Coates concluded that an awareness of
seasonality becomes increasingly difficult
with improved access to foods both in and
out of season. “We have so much access
here to food from all over the world at
any time of the year,” she described in an
interview with the HPR. “It’s difficult for
Americans to think of not having bananas
in store all year round.”
According to Romano, Americans are
“divorced from the reality of our food”
and ignorant of its origins due to continuous access to a wide variety of foods.
While it is common in other cultures to
see whole chickens hanging in butcher

FOOD

shops, most Americans think of chicken
as something that comes pre-packaged in
Styrofoam. Many supermarkets in Japan
feature photographs of the farmers who
raised the produce. In the US, however,
most food products bear little evidence
of their origins once they have reached
grocery shelves. This depersonalization
of food in America decreases consumer
awareness of food sources and makes it
more difficult to conceptualize the importance of seasonality in purchasing and
cooking habits.

CHANGING AMERICA’S
GROCERY LISTS
Solving the problems with American
food culture will require a fundamental
shift in perspectives about food. Robyn
Eckhardt, a food and travel journalist specializing in Asian and Turkish cuisines,
suggests that Americans should treat

are renowned for their large
portions, but size is not always
beneficial. “People will often
judge a meal by how big the
piece of fish was or how much
they paid,” notes Eckhardt,
instead of focusing on “appreciating well-made food.”
Stressing quality over
quantity can lead to sustainable
methods of living, particularly
with regard to meat consumption. Coates notes that meat
is almost a side note in many
other cultures and that “a lot
of people make vegetables or
herbs the focus of the meal” instead. As a result, diets in such
cultures are healthier for people
and for the environment.
Furthermore, emphasizing quality
may help shift views about seasonality. As
Coates indicates, eating local and seasonal

more work into food.
In order to change the way they treat
food, Americans must become more
mindful of food they are eating. Eckhardt
suggests that education can help inspire

The Western diet is primarily concerned with “food that is fast, cheap, and easy.”
food more like an occasion, as is common in Mediterranean culture. Eckhardt
explained to the HPR, “You’re not going
to linger over a Twinkie, but you might be
compelled to linger over a fresh croissant.” Eckhardt similarly suggests that
Americans should prioritize quality over
quantity or cost in their diets. Americans

food is something that people in other
cultures have been doing for centuries.
In Thailand, a country known for devising seasonal recipes, the northern Thai
vegetable curry, gaeng hhae, is a prime example of a dish which varies its vegetable
components based on the season.

HITTING THE (COOK)BOOKS
Beyond merely changing their
perspectives on food, Americans
need to put more work into their
food. As Michael Pollan argues in
his book, In Defense of Food, “For
most people for most of history,
gathering and preparing food has
been an occupation at the very heart
of daily life.” Today, Americans are
primarily concerned with “food
that is fast, cheap, and easy” and are
increasingly prone to diet-related
illnesses like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity and cancer.
Good health and good eating are the
simple, yet vital, rewards of putting

people to spend more time eating and
making good food. Magazines, television
shows, and food blogs can increase interest in healthy food, introduce different
culinary styles, and teach simple cooking techniques to readers and watchers.
“People need to be shown that eating
good food doesn’t mean eating a plain
steamed piece of fish and vegetables with
no seasoning,” she said.
There is also much to do outside of the
kitchen to change the way Americans relate to food. Nonetheless, Coates believes
that “there are a lot of small things that
people can certainly do without going out
of their way.” She particularly recommends getting involved with gardening,
composting, and shopping locally. By
learning more about how food is made
and how food can be used, Americans will
become more conscientious of the links
between food, health, and the environment. With inspiration from other food
cultures and adopting some of those
cultures’ food practices, American food
culture can take a turn for the better.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 15

THE
EVERGLADES,
SWEETENED
The battle to save
Florida’s natural treasure.

Matt Shuham

W

hen I fly home to Ft. Lauderdale International Airport,
I always look out the window. The view is spectacularly beautiful and mechanistically awe-inspiring. Vast
fields of marshes, swamps, and saw grass stretch out
past the horizon’s end, accompanied by a harsh grid of concrete canals
that scar the Everglades, the 60-mile wide wetlands that flows through
the southern portion of Florida. The canals were put in place in 1948
when Lake Okeechobee, Florida’s largest body of water, overflowed
after a series of destructive hurricanes and killed thousands. The plan
to contain the great lake, called The Central and Southern Florida
Project, successfully diverted flood water to domestic real estate markets and mitigated the destructive effects of hurricanes on the region.
Unfortunately, the environmental impact of the project was not the
highest consideration at the time.
Human alterations of the area have left the Everglades almost
unrecognizable. Water that would have naturally flooded the wilderness is diverted off to the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Gulf of
Mexico to the west. Remaining water is polluted by run-off from residential and agricultural fertilizer and other pollution that leads to algae
blooms and extremely high levels of phosphorous and nitrogen.
Nevertheless, the canals provide for the soil that sweetens much of
the United States. Besides oranges, grapefruit, and others, south Florida
produces half of America’s annual sugarcane crop, grown right in the
middle of the Everglades. As global warming, water pollution, fertilizer
runoff, and saltwater intrusion slowly degrade the national treasure
that is the Everglades ecosystem, Florida is left to weigh the value of
sugar production.

16 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

FOOD

In 2000, Bill Clinton and Congress tried to answer it with
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which pledged
federal dollars to invest in the health of the Everglades by
diverting water back into the ecosystem and focusing on wildlife
protection. Despite a series of setbacks and engineering difficulties, the initiative has funded local restoration and infrastructure projects and is gradually restoring water flow.
Charlie Crist proposed one of the most ambitious plans to
date while governor in 2008. He proposed purchasing United
States Sugar, one of the nation’s largest sugar corporations, and
re-integrating its vast sugarcane fields back into the Everglades
ecosystem. The governor drew plenty of criticism for the deal.
The land was overpriced and even a spokesperson for USS
acknowledged the “very active” relationship between the sugar
industry and government negotiators. But the state and United
States Sugar soon reached an agreement to purchase more than
180,000 acres of land for $1.37 billion. It was a win for environmentalists, who had long cherished the valuable land upon
which the farms sat, and it was a win for the farmers themselves
as drought and water restrictions had put USS in serious debt.
As the full force of the recession hit, Florida, with a massive
real-estate market and a huge foreclosure crisis, was an economic ground zero. The ambitious land-grab was soon viewed
as too aggressive, costly, and inappropriate in such an austere
time. In May 2009, a new deal was arranged through which
73,000 acres of land would be bought for $536 million, with the
option to purchase the rest later. As the recession continued, the
project was downsized again in August 2010 with $197 million
for 26,800 acres.
Environmentalists were hesitant to criticize the new deal,
worried of either party withdrawing altogether. United States
Sugar felt slighted after expecting a much larger sale than reality afforded. Charlie Crist finished his governorship and ran for
the Senate seat that would eventually become Marco Rubio’s
seat. The deal concluded, not with a continuous path for the
Everglades to flow into the ocean, but with two isolated pieces
of land, parts of which were wholly unfit for restoration or
water treatment.

In hindsight, many preservationists are faulting the state’s
negotiators for not steeling themselves, insisting on lower prices, and sticking to the full acreage amount. According to Judy
Sanchez, Senior Director of Corporate Communications and
Public Affairs for US Sugar, “current economic conditions make
[it] highly unlikely” that any more of the original 187,000 acre
offer will be purchased by the state.
The need for the restoration of the Everglades is as urgent
as ever. The water is no less polluted and the animals no less
endangered than they ever were before. White-tailed deer sightings are down 94 percent. More than anything, water quality
is the most troubling issue. Storm water treatment centers,
large above-ground reservoirs used to purify water from the
Everglades, do not have the capacity to process all of the fertilizer-polluted water. Some, including Peg McPherson, Executive
Director at the Legacy Institute for Nature and Culture, believe
that water purification should be a priority for the future, “I’m
very, very hopeful for the day when we can ask farmers to use
their property for restoring and treating water,” McPherson
said. “The original idea was that we were going to get that land
and use it for storm water treatment areas, and for other uses
that we couldn’t do while it was in US Sugar’s hands… The deal
that finally came through with US Sugar isn’t necessarily the
deal we thought we were going to get.”
In the past few months, Rick Scott, Florida’s penny-pinching
governor, has shown some favor to the Everglades preservation movement, pledging $40 million to restoration work. It is
a start, but more must be done in the areas of land reclamation,
water quality improvement, and environmental standards.
Florida lost big in the recession. The state missed its chance
to make a big impact when prices were low, but it should not
give up the fight. The Everglades touch almost every aspect of
the Florida economy including property values, water purification prices, and tourism. The environmental significance and
natural beauty of the Everglades are unparalleled.
This goes beyond agriculture, however powerful those forces
may be. The state of Florida must get behind the fight to save
the Everglades.

The plan to purchase and restore Flordia’s Everglades collapsed in the wake of the financial crisis.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 17

UNITED STATES

IN BRIEF
Legislation Watch
Alexander Smith
HR 2306: “ENDING
FEDERAL MARIJUANA
PROHIBITION ACT OF
2011”
HR 2306 is a rare example of bipartisan collaboration in a particularly
divided Congress. Congressmen Ron
Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (DMass.), both prominent members of their
respective parties, are cosponsors. But
the fact that the bill tackles a seemingly
untouchable issue, federal marijuana
regulation, is even more interesting.
During the previous two Congresses,
Frank introduced legislation curbing
federal enforcement of marijuana usage
laws. Both times, the bills had bipartisan support, but never made it beyond
committee, and its latest incarnation
will likely meet that same fate. Since
its introduction last June, HR 2306 has
been recommended to both the House
Judiciary and the Energy and Commerce
Committees, but neither has acted.
Regardless, the topic is certain to
galvanize groups seeking drug law reform, and the two prominent cosponsors
add greater legitimacy to the marijuana
legalization movement. Indeed, there
are already proposed ballot initiatives in
California, Colorado, and Washington
state to decriminalize marijuana. Victories there could encourage the federal
government to seriously examine the
issue, as supporters of legalization are
increasingly encouraged to advocate on
both the state and federal level.
Currently, little discussion exists
regarding this legislation, but as November approaches, accompanied by the
aforementioned ballot initiatives and
a Presidential campaign, HR 2306 will
likely gain additional attention. ¶

18 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

HR 3806: “ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME ACT”
While pundits are criticizing Congress for its inaction, Congressman Tom
Marino (R-Pa.) is claiming legislators
are doing too much simultaneously. HR
3806 states, “Each bill or joint resolution
shall embrace no more than one subject,”
but this seemingly simple bill could have
serious repercussions if signed into law.
The practice of attaching riders, or
typically irrelevant legislative items
attached to popularly supported bills,
would be prohibited. Indeed, many
controversial bills have been attached
as riders in recent years, and the most
famous one was the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act. In reality, the
Democrats introduced it as an amendment to the “Service Members Home
Ownership Tax Act of 2009”.
HR 3806 has yet to pass the House
Subcommittee on the Constitution, and
has only received five cosponsors. However, the importance of this bill lies
not in its potential passage, but in its
implications. Assisted in its drafting
by the Williamsport, Pa. Tea Party, the
bill’s focus is very appealing to small
government conservatives and libertarians. While HR 3806 may not become
law, any discussion indicates sincere
thoughts about restructuring the way
Congress conducts its business. ¶

HR 1981: “PROTECTING
CHILDREN FROM INTERNET PORNOGRAPHERS ACT OF 2011”
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
stole the legislative spotlight for January,
but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lamar Smith
(R-Tex.), has another bill, the “Protecting
Children From Internet Pornographers
Act of 2011” under discussion. While the
title suggests possible bipartisan support,
HR 1981 would significantly change the
federal government’s role in monitoring
the Internet.
Among the new punishments for
possessing or creating child pornography are mandates for Internet service
providers to maintain databases tracking convicted perpetrators’ IP addresses
for one year at minimum. The goal is to
locate individuals exchanging child pornography, but the implications extend
well beyond that. Essentially, information the government previously required
a warrant for, Internet service providers
would have to submit to authorities upon
request.
The online community has remained
silent, however, and because this legislation affects users rather than major
service providers, few are protesting the
bill. Service providers have expressed
disagreement with the expansion of federal authority, but the lack of outrage is
most likely a product of minimal opposition from major online organizations.
HR 1981 has passed the House Judiciary
Committee, and is awaiting discussion by
the full chamber. Expect for this bill to
dominate discussion about civil liberties
in the upcoming months. ¶

UNITED STATES

On the Docket
Jose Robles

MILLER V.
ALABAMA
On March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments
for Miller v. Alabama, and must decide whether life sentences
without parole are constitutional for minors. Not only will this
case significantly impact the 2570 juveniles serving such sentences throughout the country, but also it could greatly influence future rulings on the Eighth Amendment.
Over the past decade, the Court has heard two cases involving
criminal sentencing for minors. In Roper v. Simmons (2005),
the Court struck down capital punishment for minors, and five
years later, in Graham v. Florida, the justices declared that a
minor could not be sentenced to life without parole for crimes
other than murder.
The court will revisit issue again when considering Evan
Miller, who at age fourteen assaulted a middle-aged man and
subsequently set his trailer on fire. Miller was later convicted
of murder and given a life sentence without possibility of
parole. Miller appealed the decision, but the Alabama Supreme
Court declined to hear the case.
The case is likely to split along familiar lines. Conservatives
justices like Clarence Thomas believe that sentences should be
judged according to, “the standards that prevailed at the time
of the founding.” Meanwhile, liberal justices adhere to the
precedent set by former Chief Justice Earl Warren, that sentences should be judged according to the, “evolving standards
of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

KIOBEL V.
ROYAL DUTCH
PETROLEUM
In the Citizens United (2010) decision, the Supreme Court
ruled that corporations could be considered persons, allowing
them to spend unlimited sums on political advertising. The
Court has begun examining the issue of corporate personhood
during February oral arguments for Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum.
The case questions whether corporations can be sued under
the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue for
damages for actions carried outside the United States in violation of U.S. law or international treaties. The suit, brought
by Nigerian citizens, seeks damages against Royal Dutch
Petroleum for allegedly helping the Nigerian government carry
out torture and extrajudicial killings.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already decided only
individuals, not corporations, are liable under the Alien Tort
Statute. However, the implications of Citizens United may
sway the Supreme Court in a different direction. ¶

As with Graham, Justice Anthony Kennedy will probably
cast the deciding vote, which will either send the Court in
the direction of increasingly liberal readings of the cruel and
unusual punishment clause or maintain the status quo. ¶

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 19

AMERICA,
DRONES AND
THE FUTURE
OF COMBAT
Gabriel Rosen

O

n November 26, 2011, an American
drone flew over the hilly Pakistani
border after successfully hitting its target.
The result: 24 Pakistani soldiers
lay dead, and 13 civilians were
injured. This dramatic incident
was no anomaly. The United States
has engaged in drone warfare in
Pakistan for almost a decade, killing
over 2300 militants and at least 500
civilians according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism. Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles, or drones, are used to
fly in conditions deemed unsuitable

20 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

or unsafe for humans.
However, is this impersonal
method of killing immoral? While
drone warfare is no more damaging
than conventional warfare, the
psychological effects it could have
on drone pilots and the virtually
unchecked power the President has
to conduct military strikes without
Congressional approval are extremely
worrying.

HUMAN COSTS
Among the most significant
criticisms of drone warfare is the
claim that the unmanned aircrafts
minimize the full emotional impact of
death, turning killing into something
akin to a video game. During missilefire, soldiers take their cues from
computers, shooting at targets that
might be hundreds of miles away.

UNITED STATES

While military generals have frequently made orders outside
of warzones throughout history, the lack of an actual human
being directly executing attacks contributes to a new level of
impersonality in war.
However, the very dispassion that drones are criticized
for also provides one of the strongest arguments in their
favor. Drone strikes allow for cooler calculations, mitigating
the effect of human emotions that can compromise decisionmaking capabilities. Drones permit precise, calculated strikes,
theoretically minimizing the toll on civilian lives and shielding
soldiers from direct combat.
There is some disagreement as to the actual benefits
of impersonal warfare. As Harvard preceptor Paul Sludds
explained to the HPR, “Many philosophers think that emotion
is a key factor in our moral compass.” While dispassion might
yield the most effective course of action, emotion can allow
individuals to experience, “more acutely what is going on and to
make the most moral decision possible.” Impersonality in drone
warfare, therefore, could be a double-edged sword.

decisions he makes on the battlefield.
But, a less obvious distinction with traditional combat is
the lack of clear separation between military and civilian life.
Soldiers on the ground do not immediately return home after
missions, but instead stay on base close to the battlefield. This
separation allows soldiers a chance to reflect and decompress
before their return home.
This lack of separation for drone pilots is potentially
troublesome, given that they can remotely complete a mission,
often involving the death of numerous individuals, and return
home immediately after. As Sludds explained, “The danger with
these people, is that we would have some guy in Nevada going
to work in the morning, killing a few people, then coming back
home to hug his wife and watch the Super Bowl.” The effects are
largely unstudied, but the blurring line between the warfront
and home front underscores the potential problems of a highly
impersonal form of warfare.

THE MEN BEHIND THE MACHINES

The greatest questions surrounding drone warfare, however,
are more legal than ethical, and drone usage may undermine
the democratic process. When the United States invaded Iraq,
it was heavily criticized for not putting the decision up to a true
democratic vote. However, the issue was at least debated and
contested by Congress because it involved risking the lives of the
American soldiers.

While drones represent a sizeable improvement over
conventional methods in precision and minimizing casualties,
the effects on pilots are unclear. Sludds notes that in all other
forms of battle, the soldier is imperiled. It is precisely this risk
that conveys the full impact of war onto a soldier and affects the

SILENT KILLERS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 21

UNITED STATES

The lack of oversight from groups
outside of the executive branch
marks a significant shift in power.
Drones in contrast remove the human element, making the
decision of going to war much less contentious. American drone
strikes in Pakistan, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere are
on a scale that would have received more political scrutiny from
the public had they been manned missions. Peter Singer of the
Brookings Institute explained in a recent article that lack of men
on the ground significantly reduces the financial and mental
cost of war. Singer asserted that without military casualties
to influence voters, politicians “no longer treat the previously
weighty matters of war and peace the same way.”

AMERICAN APATHY
There is some question, however, as to the legitimacy of
these concerns. The war decision-making process has long
excluded average Americans, and since the Civil War, the United
States has not fought a major battle on American soil, shielding
civilians from the true costs of war.
But drone use may further reduce the citizenry’s ability to
control when the United States wages war. Harvard Professor
Shawn Ramirez tells the HPR that drone warfare allows the
President, “to bypass Congress and essentially conduct strikes
that nobody else knows about.” Because the drone program is
controlled by the CIA and not the military, the President has
exclusive authority to reveal statistics about the engagements
conducted and resulting casualties. Congress has limited
capacity to investigate these matters, and even groups like
the American Civil Liberties Union cannot discuss the matter
meaningfully because drone programs are not officially
recognized. The lack of oversight from groups outside of the
executive branch marks a significant shift in power.
Nevertheless, Professor Patrick Lin of the California
Polytechnic State Institute disagrees with this notion that new
military technology is a threat to democracy. He explained to the
HPR that although this may appear to create an imbalance of
power between the branches, the “balance of powers is already
off kilter since the War Powers Resolution has been routinely
ignored by our presidents for decades.” Instead, the power of
shared information through the Internet and the media has
replaced the importance of shared power among the three
branches. Demonstrations of public disapproval are immediate

22 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

and effective, leading Lin to contend that power focused on the
executive allows citizens to “focus [their] disapproval on a single
person” rather than creating general discontent with “hundreds
of elected officials.” While the initial decision to carry out strikes
may rest with one individual, the choice to continue falls upon
the many.

PROMOTING TERRORISM
A more subtle concern with drone strikes shifts the focus
from domestic effects to their global impact. Ramirez argues
that the United States’ main hesitation when it comes to drone
warfare should be the political instability it often breeds.
Ironically, the very tool intended to fight terrorists may actually
undercut American efforts.
Initially, drone warfare offered a diplomatic loophole
whereby the United States could conduct anti-terror strikes
without Pakistan and other countries perceiving a violation of
sovereignty. Instead, drone strikes are now widely regarded
on par with any manned craft in terms of intrusiveness.
Policymakers fear that citizens of targeted countries will no
longer support their governments if the United States is allowed
to conduct drone strikes. This uncertainty may fuel more
instability in the already shaky Arab world, and in the turmoil
terrorist groups could gain a greater foothold.
Tom Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at the
Center for International Policy, told the HPR that he sees
no end to drone warfare in the near future. Barry said, “The
U.S. public, the U.S. Congress and most of the media support
these clandestine operations for two main reasons: support for
counterterrorism wars and intervention, and the relative lack of
risk to U.S. lives.”
Indeed, there may even be a time when, “drone operations at
home become more common, whether for homeland security,
military training, or law enforcement and public safety.” Only
then perhaps will the public begin raising real questions about
their use. Until that time though, as the United States continues
to modernize its military, drones have become an integral part of
the military’s repertoire.

UNITED STATES

MITT
ROMNEY’S
HARVARD
PROBLEM
Ross Svenson

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 23

UNITED STATES

R

ick Santorum’s February surge underscores what
many have been saying all along: Republican voters
are unwilling to accept Mitt Romney as their nominee.
While Romney has considerable political experience
and remains the strongest threat to President Obama this fall,
he has failed to charm the base. Romney’s image is at the core of
this problem: Harvard and Massachusetts, long associated with
liberal elites, are not popular attributes, particularly in the eyes
of Tea Party members. Yet, Romney graduated from Harvard’s
Law and Business Schools and served as Governor of Massachusetts.
These connections have reinforced the perception that
Romney is “out of touch” with ordinary Americans. Romney has
attempted to distance himself from Harvard and cast himself
as the conservative standard-bearer during the campaign with
mixed results. The right’s perception of Romney as disconnected
will continue to haunt him throughout the nominating process,
but it is unlikely that this would harm him significantly among
Republican voters in the general election.

THE ALBATROSS OF ELITISM
“Harvard is the symbol of elite America,” Vanessa Williamson, co-author of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican
Conservatism, told the HPR. This symbolism has been evident
for decades with Richard Nixon calling Harvard, “the Kremlin
on the Charles” during the 1970s. Even today, conservative commentators dub HLS professor Elizabeth Warren a member of the
“Harvard elite.”
According to Williamson, when conservatives refer to
Harvard elites, they criticize cultural or liberal elitism. “Fear of

24 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

elitism is a fear of cultural elitism … the Tea Party is concerned
about liberal, coastal elites who look down on average Americans,” she explained.
Harvard professor Brett Flehinger agrees, telling the HPR
that conservatives like Republican presidential hopeful Rick
Santorum express, “a critique of liberalism.” Republicans and
Tea Party supporters do not want those associated with elite
institutions and liberal surroundings in positions of power. This
Republican definition of elitism may explain why Mitt Romney
is confronting a larger issue with his association with the Ivy
League than both President Bushes, who attended Yale. They
had the benefit of a Texan identity, while Romney’s connection
to the elite Ivy League is compounded by his history as Massachusetts Governor.
With conservatives holding these beliefs, Romney clearly
began his campaign at a disadvantage when it came to connecting with Republican voters. Indeed, Romney has experienced
what Harvard-affiliated Williamson found when she researched
the Tea Party. She comments, “As a general rule, people were
suspicious before they met me.” Romney similarly has to shatter
this barrier of suspicion.

TRYING TO BREAK THROUGH
Romney has taken several measures to connect with conservatives; on a superficial level, Flehinger notes Romney has been
wearing open-collared shirts and jeans this campaign cycle.
He also has placed, “great emphasis on patriotism” to stave off
perceptions of disconnectedness from ordinary citizens, and
singing ‘America the Beautiful’ has become a regular feature on
the stump.

UNITED STATES

More importantly though Flehinger believes Romney is
“running as a businessman.” While this positioning as a businessman highlights his wealth, giving him a more traditionally
populist definition of elitism among Democrats and Independents, it actually plays well with conservatives. The Tea Party
members Williamson interviewed “weren’t [classic] populists.”
She reasserts the idea that, “right wing populism aims at cultural
symbols of the left wing…being rich is not a bad thing, and in fact
is something to be admired.”
Furthermore, Flehinger observed that throughout the nomination process Romney’s opponents have not paid attention to
his multiple houses. Such an attack on personal wealth would
likely sit poorly with Republican voters, even though Newt
Gingrich has not shied away from criticizing job-cutting aspects
of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. Still, even this attack earned
Gingrich criticism because fellow Republicans found parallels
with liberal attacks on the free market.
Although Romney’s personal wealth itself does not raise
concerns for Republican voters, he has made several gaffes
regarding his wealth, earning widespread criticism from the
media, Democrats, and even some Republicans. He infamously
bet Texas Governor Rick Perry $10,000 at a debate over previous
statements on the individual mandate. He even jokingly referred
to himself as “unemployed” while speaking with a group of
unemployed Floridians. Both incidents were widely covered by
the media and Democrats sent out email blasts to supporters
in hopes of raising money from Romney’s perceived aloofness.
Some Republican opponents, like Rick Perry, criticized the bet
as, “a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen.” The bet,
however, along with his unemployment joke, proved unimportant with the Republican electorate.
In addition to attempts to separate himself from perceived
elitism, Romney has explicitly put distance between himself and
Harvard. He has repeatedly criticized Obama as out-of-touch,
asserting that the President’s Harvard-linked foreign policy
advisors advocate for more diplomatic engagement and reduced
military strength. In a strong address to the Veterans of Foreign
Wars Convention, Romney criticized these advisors, stating,
“That may be what they think in the Harvard faculty lounge, but
it’s not what they know on the battlefield!”
But Romney’s attempts to distance himself from Harvard
are often little more than words. Romney retains many Harvard
professors and alumni as advisor, including economic advisor
Professor N. Gregory Mankiw and key foreign policy advisor
Kennedy School Professor Meghan O’Sullivan. Romney additionally continues to donate substantial sums to Harvard
Business School according to recently released tax returns, and
he has received over $56,000 from Harvard professors and their
spouses in campaign donations since 2002.

FIXING PERCEPTIONS
To Williamson, Romney in a way has become “a Tea Party
candidate.” Not only has he, “made a big effort to show he’s not
still the guy who passed Romneycare,” but he has, “done things
like show support for the Ryan budget.” Through these actions,
Williamson claims Romney has sent signals to conservatives
that he shares their orthodox views. Many leading conservatives
have responded positively to these demonstrations of conserva-

tism. Tea Party favorites South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,
Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Delaware 2010 Senate
nominee Christine O’Donnell, and many others have endorsed
him.
There is evidence however, that despite his support among
leading conservative figures, Romney has not made a favorable
impression on voters who express strong anti-elite sentiments.
He has struggled with Tea Party supporters and self-identified
“very conservative” voters throughout the nomination process.
He also has lost several caucus contests, which tend to be smaller and filled with more conservative members of the Republican
base.
Explaining Romney’s losses thus far, Williamson said, “No
one I interviewed a year and half ago liked Romney. They still
don’t like him.” She finds substantial evidence of his impalpability to many Republicans on Tea Party blogs. For example, the
Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation posted a link on their Facebook page to an article entitled, “The Mitt Romney Deception”
while posing the question, “If you are supporting Mitt Romney
as a Tea Party person, ask yourself – is he the kind of person
that best represents Tea Party values?” A February Rasmussen
Reports survey also showed Romney trailing Santorum among
Tea Party supporters by 35 percentage points and “very conservative” voters by 36 points.
If Romney can reduce these deficits like he managed in
Florida and use his vast organizational advantages to outlast
his opponents, he should be able to arrive at the Republican
National Convention with the nomination sewn up. His ability
to counteract his elitist image will matter little in winning the
conservative votes, although he will certainly face Democratic
attacks on his fabulous wealth. According to Williamson, “Beating Obama is the number one concern…He doesn’t have to worry
that [anti-elite conservatives won’t] come out to vote in the
general election.”

FOCUS ON NOVEMBER
Romney may be a Harvard-educated governor from Massachusetts, but he is nothing like Obama in the eyes of conservatives. Nevertheless, Obama does not have an elitist image
problem with his own party as Democrats subscribe to more
economic-based populism, and consequently see Obama as the
son of a single mother who broke through significant social
barriers to achieve success. The President is, however, roundly
criticized by Republicans for elitist viewpoints. Flehinger noted,
“Obama’s personality, aside from other issues like race, makes
him more susceptible to that criticism [elitism].” Additionally,
Flehinger observed, “Figures of the far right have done a good
job of keeping him ‘foreign.’” For conservatives, Obama is emblematic of the cultural or liberal elitism Williamson described.
This disdain for Obama will keep conservatives from staying
home on Election Day even with Romney as the Republican
nominee.
For Romney to win, he must focus on November, given that
time is running out for Romney to successfully shed his Harvard
and Massachusetts background. While mitigating his elitist
image is certainly important, his success will ultimately entail
convincing Republican voters that he remains the strongest contender in the general election.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 25

WORLD

IN BRIEF
Venezuela, 10/7/12

Russia, 3/4/12
On February 1, President Vladimir
Putin surprisingly acknowledged that a
presidential run-off might be possible.
Weeks before the March election, Putin
has been busy suppressing criticism
from dissidents, even restraining Russia’s leading independent radio station.
Nonetheless, during the February 4 protests, Putin detractors far outnumbered
supporters. Putin’s hard stance and stubborn resistance to social media will likely
hurt his final performance and prevent
him from achieving an outright popular
majority. Communist Party leader Gennaday Zyuganov would be Putin’s likely
opponent in any run-off. ¶

France, First Round
4/22/12
According to recent polling, incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy is currently
trailing Socialist nominee François
Hollande while barely edging the
unelectable nationalist Marine Le
Pen. Sarkozy’s attempt to remedy this
sore situation by calling in German
Chancellor Angela Merkel will likely
accomplish nothing, except for recalling memories of unpopular austerity measures. Though such reforms
like raising the retirement age to 62,
seem innocuous to Americans, the
French public has responded negatively. Meanwhile, the inexperienced
Hollande does not have much more to
offer beyond regime change, but this
would likely be enough to trounce
Sarkozy in a run-off. ¶

26 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

Chavez has been fairly cautious since the 2010 legislative elections, in
which the opposition coalition claimed a majority of votes. Indeed, his position looks increasingly perilous as the opposition coalesces. Leopoldo López,
one of three opposition candidates, recently threw his support behind primary opposition leader Henrique Capriles Radonski. Given these developments,
Chavez strengthened his military support by appointing an army friend to
Congress in an attempt to solidify his power base. However, whether this will
be enough for an outright victory remains questionable. Nevertheless, given
Chavez’s popularity with the electorate, especially the poor, the possibility of
his winning another six year term remains quite high. ¶

ELECTION 2012:
THE WORLD VOTES
Ken Mai

Mexico, 7/1/12
This year’s election has created a political phenomenon that everyone is buzzing about: PAN (National Action Party) candidate Josefina
Vázquez Mota. Having won her conservative party’s primary with a
whopping 55 percent against incumbent President Calderón’s handpicked Ernesto Cordero, she symbolizes a break from the party’s past.
Voters, disillusioned by PAN’s inability to deliver on their promises,
have increasingly been looking toward PRI’s (Institutional Revolutionary Party) Enrique Pena Nieto. The third candidate, Andrés Manuel
Lopez Obrador from the Democratic Revolution Party, has lost his former luster. Although pundits are predicting a comfortable Nieto win,
polls are beginning suggest a shift in momentum. Over the upcoming
months, Vázquez Mota could articulate a platform to distinguish herself from the Calderón’s presidency’s inefficacy, giving her a chance to
become Mexico’s first woman President. ¶

Egypt, May 2012
With the end of parliamentary elections, Egypt is heading for more
political turmoil. Presidential elections have been moved up to April due
to demands from activists and presidential hopeful Amr Moussa, the exchief of the Arab League. Moussa is widely expected to be victorious, but
the Freedom and Justice Party’s momentum could propel their nominee,
Khairat Al Shater. Other hopefuls include Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shafik, the alKarama party’s Hamdeen Sabahy, and Lt. Gen. Ahmed Hossam Khairallah,
who predicts that concerns about stability and economic growth will push
voters toward the widely respected military. ¶

WORLD

Ken Mai

The Arab World’s
Forgotten Springs
OMAN

JORDAN

ALGERIA

WHAT HAPPENED

WHAT HAPPENED

WHAT HAPPENED

After the Tunisian protests in January
2011, 200 Omanis gathered in the capital
city of Muscat to protest government
corruption and demand a minimum
wage increase. After a series of similar,
relatively calm February protests, Sultan
Qaboos bin Said increased the minimum wage of private sector workers,
raised stipends for college students, and
replaced six members of his cabinet. Further protests in the industrial city Sohar
left some bloodshed, resulting in further
government restructuring, most prominently elevating the role of parliament
from advisory to legislative.

Protests here against high food prices
early last year eventually developed into
a wider call for political reform. Rooted
in criticisms of then Prime Minister
Samir Rifai’s ineffectual policies and
corrupt administration, the protesters’
calls for Rafai’s dismissal by the king
succeeded. However, the monarchy
remained largely free from criticism.
Eventually, King Abdullah II replaced
Rifai with ex-general Marouf al-Bakhit,
but following additional slow economic
growth, Bakhit himself was replaced by
Awn al-Khasawneh, a former judge with
the International Court of Justice.

WHAT’S COMING

WHAT’S COMING

A major source of the country’s peace
is the people’s love for the sultan. At
age 70 and without an heir however,
the sultan’s influence over Oman might
not last much longer. Coupled with the
country’s depleting oil supply, the source
of its recent economic boom, experts
are concerned for Oman’s future. Some
factors are promising though: the new
legislative role of parliament represents a
promising move toward democracy, and
the country’s friendship with the West
and Iran will prove pivotal in future dealings between the two entities. ¶

Because the government has largely
failed in attempts to placate the people,
Jordanians have begun lodging complaints against the monarchy, Amman’s
ultimate fount of political power. Interestingly though, these new protesters
are different from before. Comprised of
tribal members outside the cities, they
are typically unwavering supporters
of the monarchy. This underlies a shift
in attitudes toward the existing power
structure, and could pose a far more
significant threat. ¶

Similarly, Algeria’s protests also began
in response to food price hikes and
evolved into a clarion call about problems
including a 10 percent unemployment
rate, police state restrictions, and the
two-decade long state of emergency that
has stifled public protests. Mimicking Tunisian protester Muhammed Bouazizi, ten
protesters self-immolated or committed
other such acts. In an attempt to counter
this trend, the government halved food
prices, and then afterwards lifted the
state of emergency, allowing protests in
all areas outside the capital. Finally, in an
attempt to permanently resolve wthis,
President Bouteflika, who has ruled the
nation since 1999, announced parliamentary elections tentatively scheduled for
May 10th this year.

WHAT’S COMING
Last February’s protests were considered ‘a key turning point,’ given the
concessions extracted from the government. Indeed, activist Ali Rachedi of the
Front of Socialist Forces party explained
that protesters broken the ‘psychological
barrier’ that previously hindered such
popular action. However, the solutions
proposed by the government seem are
nominal and unsustainable: political
concessions aside, continued economic
stagnation in a country where 70 percent of the population is under age 30
represents a fundamental challenge to =
government’s stability. Coupled with new
dissatisfaction of the disbanded Communal Guards, the state militia that has been
fighting terrorist forces, Algeria remains
a kettle of volatile forces reaching its
boiling point. ¶

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 27

WORLD

IS THE
EUROPEAN
PROJECT
STALLED?
The Future Prospects of E.U. Enlargement

Krister Koskelo

A

s the Eurozone crisis drags on, many are questioning
whether the very essence of the European project has
been jeopardized.
The European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity
to absorb new member states seems
particularly imperiled, as E.U.
enlargement has slowed recently,
even grinding to a halt. Â Though
the economic crisis has certainly

28 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

played a significant role in stalling
expansion, it is important not to
lose sight of long-term geopolitical
and cultural considerations. Overall,
though some countries have decided
to tentatively remain outside the

European Union for political or
economic reasons, many obstacles
toward expansion come from within
the organization itself.

WORLD

HOLDING OFF MEMBERSHIP
Some slowdown can be attributed to waning desires and
growing doubts about membership within candidate countries,
sentiments that are perhaps most pronounced in Turkey. As
Hilmi Güvenal, a prominent Istanbul businessman, points out
for the HPR, the majority of Turkey’s population is Islamic
and nationalistic. Hence, Güvenal says, “being independent
[from Western influence] and having good relations with other
Muslim countries sells better in the domestic market than
accepting the harsh membership conditions of the E.U.,” a
multilateral entity viewed as a “Christian club” in the Middle
East. According to Güvenal, the current crisis per se has not
significantly affected Turkish desire for E.U. membership yet.
Rather, the decreasing economic disparity over the past decade
between a rapidly modernizing Turkey and an increasingly
stagnant E.U. has become more evident, and this fact, more
than the crisis itself, has reduced Turkish support for
membership. Meanwhile, Turkey has rediscovered its position
as a geopolitical superpower in the Middle East, asserting itself
as a bridge between the West and Arab world, a vastly more
appealing position for Ankara than that of a peripheral E.U.
member.
Despite the decline of Turkey’s E.U. aspirations, the
prospect of joining the single market and integrating fully
into Europe remains attractive for many smaller countries,
especially in the Western Balkans. In Croatia, despite the “deep
impact” that the Eurozone crisis has had on public perceptions
of E.U. membership, former Croatian foreign minister Miomir
Žužul observes that Croatians did approve E.U. accession in a
referendum this past January. Žužul notes that the prospect of
accessing the concrete benefits of E.U. membership remains
relatively attractive. Furthermore, many Croatians view E.U.
membership as a “homecoming,” whereby Croatia can rejoin
the Western European community that it has historically had
significant ties with. Croatia’s neighbors, including countries
like Serbia, Macedonia and Albania have thus far been
undeterred by the crisis, each having made E.U. accession an
important foreign policy priority. However, these countries still
face significant political and economic hurdles. For example,
Albania’s political stalemate following its June 2009 elections
prevents it from being recognized as an official candidate by
the European Union, and Bosnia is still very fragile fifteen
years after rampant ethnic conflict.

INTERNAL DIVISIONS
Though individual candidate states have issues delaying
accession, most of the slowdown can be attributed to factors
within the E.U. itself. According to Harvard professor
Grzegorz Ekiert, an expert in Eastern European E.U. politics,
the Eurozone crisis has sharpened the sense of “enlargement
fatigue” in Brussels. Given the economic woes of Greece
and other debt laden states, these nations may soon avidly
pursue the E.U.’s generous structural funds, in addition to the

bailouts already dispensed. When even existing members are
exorbitantly expensive to support, the E.U. will think twice
before admitting new members.
Žužul further highlights internal disputes within the E.U.,
noting that since the mid-1990s, the E.U. has been split into two
factions regarding the Balkans. One faction felt that Croatia
should “remain tied with the Balkans” due to its position as
“the only stable actor in a historically troubled region,” and
hence advocated simultaneous accession for all the Balkan
countries. The other favored approaching accession on a nation
by nation basis. Žužul claims that disagreements between
these two groups were the “chief cause” in delays to Croatia’s
accession, because they ended up imposing “far stricter
procedures and requirements for Croatia’s membership” than
had been the case for previous members.

FUTURE CONCERNS
Longer-term geopolitical and cultural factors must also be
considered. Ekiert, paraphrasing well-known scholar Jacques
Rupnik, claims that “the E.U. is reaching its geopolitical limits.”
Russia considers the Caucasus region, Belarus, and Ukraine to
be firmly within its sphere of influence and severely opposes
any prospect of E.U. membership for these nations. The
Putin administration disapproves of even mere attempts by
those countries to cooperate more closely with the European
community.
Furthermore, though cultural disputes are significant
taboos in E.U. circles, Ekiert notes there is a view in Brussels
that the Western Balkans is the only remaining area that
is “culturally European.” From this school of thought, a
preliminary consensus is emerging between France and
Germany that the Mediterranean basin, including Turkey,
does not belong in the E.U. The huge populations of Turkey
and Ukraine would also guarantee them large representation
in the European institutions, which operate on proportional
representation. The current core European countries are
unlikely to yield their substantial existing influence to the
prospective newcomers.
For the short term, E.U. enlargement will be delayed for at
least several years. Ekiert and Žužul concur that Croatia will
be the last country admitted for some time, with the possible
exception of Iceland, which due to its tiny size and its preexisting compliance with most E.U. requirements should be
easy to integrate. During this severe crisis, enlargement is a low
priority for the E.U., and as a senior German politician notes,
“the efficiency of E.U. institutions must be improved first,”
before any further enlargement can be considered.
But beyond that, the great era of European expansion may
be reaching its twilight, and the (eventual) admittance of the
Western Balkan countries will, in all likelihood, demarcate the
final limit of E.U. expansion. Limited free trade agreements
notwithstanding, it now looks as if the inhabitants of Turkey,
Ukraine, and the Caucasus countries will forever be left out of
Europe’s great political and economic experiment.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 29

WORLD

INSIDE IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Elsa Kania

I

n November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Association
released a report with compelling
evidence that Iran has, “carried out
activities relevant to the development of
a nuclear device.” A veritable explosion of
frenetic media coverage, heated political rhetoric, and escalating international
pressure ensued, given that a nuclear
Iran would have serious ramifications for
security in the Persian Gulf and beyond.
Tehran could potentially use nuclear
capacity to increase its regional leverage,
potentially inciting an arms race, or as
President Ahmadinejad has threatened, to
“wipe [Israel] off the map.” Nonetheless,
Iran continues to claim that its nuclear
program is solely for peaceful purposes,
attributing the IAEA report to, in the
words of Ahmadinejad, “absurd U.S.
claims.” After its publication, Ahmadinejad proclaimed to a crowd of thousands of
Iranians, “This nation won’t retreat one
iota from the path it is going.” However,
there remains great uncertainty as to
what, precisely, that path might be.
While Iran’s nuclear program has advanced beyond what the requirements for
a civilian nuclear program, the strategic
aims of this nuclear quest remain unclear.
Does Iran seek simply to deter a threatened military strike or foreign intervention? Or does Iran intend to project its
power more aggressively in the Persian
Gulf? The stakes and the costs of miscalculation are high. Beyond the media hype
though, a balanced and nuanced examination of domestic dynamics surrounding
Iran’s nuclear program is needed.

A LEGITIMIZING NARRATIVE
A brief look at the historical context
of the political calculus guiding Iranian
elites is revealing. Although originally
initiated by the Shah with U.S. support,
Iran’s nuclear program was revived during, and must be understood in the context of, the Iran-Iraq War. This devastating conflict left over 1.5 million dead and
deeply shaped the new Islamic Republic’s
perspective on its political, strategic, and
military surroundings. The United States’

30 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

perceived encouragement of Iraq gave
rise to both an increasingly polemical
narrative of a Western conspiracy against
Iran and the perceived imperative of
sophisticated deterrent capacity.
Iran’s nuclear program has become
integral to the regime’s character and
base of support. Annie Tracy Samuel, a
research fellow at the Kennedy School’s
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs told the HPR, “the nuclear
program symbolizes for Iran its struggle
for independence from what it perceives
to be an unfair and oppressive international system.” Samuel continues, it,
“plays an important role in the regime’s
overall legitimizing narrative, on domestic, international, and strategic levels…
symboliz[ing] Iran’s technological advancement and capabilities, its independence, and its power.”
This overarching narrative was
highlighted by the purge of moderate
political figures and ascendance of hardliners after the 2009 Green Movement
protests against Ahmadinejad’s reelection. Hooman Majd, former advisor and
translator for Iranian Presidents Khatami
and Ahmadinejad, and author of The Ayatollahs’ Democracy tells the HPR, “It’s become a question of Iran’s national rights.”
Because the regime has relied heavily
upon this narrative of independence and

self-sufficiency, Majd believes, “If they
were to give in on the nuclear program,
they would lose a tremendous amount of
credibility.”

THE PEOPLE’S PROGRAM?
With increasing economic pressures
and the potential for domestic unrest, social cohesion is deeply entwined with this
legitimizing narrative. Examples of strife
include protests on the anniversary of
opposition leaders’ Mir Hossein Mousavi
and Mehdi Karoubi house arrest. Dr.
Djavad Salehi-Isfahani of the Brookings
Institute told the HPR, “Iran’s society is
polarized. The regime has legitimacy with
the lower strata of society, and the reason
why it has legitimacy is because it’s
against powerful countries, against rich
countries.” Substantial popular support
remains for Iran’s nuclear program. Even
the economic hardships that ordinary
citizens have endured because of international sanctions are framed by the regime
in terms of a Western conspiracy.
Sanctions thus far have provoked negative sentiments more against the West
than against the regime itself. Certainly,
the government has been held responsible
for earlier economic challenges. In general, according to Majd, public opinion,
“criticize[s] Ahmadinejad for giving the

WORLD

West and Israel excuses to get the international community to
be anti-Iran with his belligerent rhetoric.” Many believe that this
bellicosity has facilitated U.S. efforts to coordinate multilateral
support for sanctions and other punitive measures. However,
sanctions’ effectiveness on the Iranian street have hardly had
the desired effect, engendering renewed bitterness towards the
West while weakening the middle class, including reformers and
opposition figures, and thus ultimately strengthening the regime
further.

WHO AND WHY?
The Islamic Republic of Iran has one of the world’s most
opaque regimes, an amalgamation of political and clerical authorities. Powerful actors including the Guardian Council and
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps play key roles. Competition
among regime elites, even between the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and President Ahmadinejad, has been ongoing.
However, the current crisis has created unity of purpose. Majd,
who maintains close ties to key figures in the current administration, believes these, “divisions [are] not on whether Iran
should or should not have a nuclear program…but based on how
Iran has approached dealings with the West.”
While the Guards Corps theoretically oversees the program
and the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization operates day-today activities, Majd emphasized, “only one person has true

Sanctions’ effectiveness on the
Iranian street have hardly had
the desired effect, engendering
renewed bitterness
authority—the nuclear weapons program is controlled by the
Supreme Leader.” While Ahmadinejad may be willing to extend
conciliatory policies with the West, conscious of his legacy, the
matter may be largely beyond his control. Ahmadinejad’s influence is questioned, and he was recently summoned before Iran’s
parliament to answer charges economic mismanagement.

INTENTIONS?
Day by day, the situation escalates on between Iran and the
West, as progressively harsher sanctions have been imposed
without measurable progress. Beyond the constantly fervent political rhetoric and threats, the assassination of Iranian nuclear
scientists and similar attacks on Israeli diplomats in Georgia and
India reveal a covert war waged behind the scenes. Meanwhile,
further destabilization and even nuclear proliferation in the region seem inevitable. Robert Haddick, who has advised the State
Department and the National Intelligence Council on irregular
warfare, observes that Sunni Arab neighbors are becoming increasingly “terrified” of Iran’s nuclear program and are enhancing their own military capacity. Haddick tells the HPR, “Iran’s
leaders should realize that they have started an arms race that in
the end they can’t win and that will hurt Iran’s security.”

However, for these wary neighbors and the international
community alike, a question persists. What are Iran’s intentions,
and how would a nuclear Iran behave? Nuclear capacity has
been credited with forcing greater responsibility upon states and
reducing the potential for direct conflict, whether between the
Soviet Union and the U.S. during the Cold War or between India
and Pakistan. Perhaps, contrary to predominating doomsday
predictions, raising the stakes could allow for greater security
and stability in the region. Yet, anticipating the full implications
and consequences of such scenarios is impossible.
Nuclear capacity could instead become an instrument of
Iranian efforts to dominate the Persian Gulf. Haddick suggested that Iran could enhance its security more aggressively,
by “lever[ing] its nuclear program to expand its influence in its
region, through coercion and stepped-up proxy action.” On the
other hand, Majd emphasized the prestige that nuclear capacity would confer, saying, “I don’t think it’s about expansionism.
I think its much more about geopolitical power.” Meanwhile,
Samuel somewhat paradoxically comments, “The nuclear
program is a sign of strength, but the need for a deterrent force
is a sign of weakness.” Indeed, Majd believes that Iran seeks
will use its program, “to protect the regime from outside force
being used against it,” rather than as a means of, “protect[ing]
regime longevity.” Perceived national interests hint towards a
more aggressive track. Considering ongoing covert measures and
that official U.S. policy towards Iran has long been supporting
regime change though, Iran has rational reasons to seek security
through enhanced deterrence.

ENDGAMES
As the situation continues to escalate, unease prevails in the
United States and Iran alike. Patterns of mutual escalation leave
little room for compromise. The question now becomes what
the endgames of U.S. and Iranian policy are and whether war is
inevitable. The United States, according to Majd, “is putting itself into a corner—at some point…war, becomes the only option.”
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, begun cutting
off oil from European customers, and publicly unveiled new advances in its nuclear program. While the potential for an Israeli
strike with tacit U.S. support is openly discussed, diplomatic
initiatives offer potential for rapprochement. The hope, however
faint, still remains that a negotiated solution is within reach.
With mounting pressure, Iran has expressed a desire to
renew diplomatic talks. Indeed, William Tobey, Senior Fellow at
the Belfer Center and former Deputy Administrator for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security
Administration, tells the HPR that, “the critical time is now” as,
“the window for negotiation is closing.” To prevent worst-case
scenarios, leaders must confront deeply-rooted political and
policy constraints. This entails that both sides redefine traditional conceptions of acceptable outcomes are. Unrelenting
pressures have only perpetuated tensions, and Samuel believes
that the regime’s ability to justify such a radical policy reversal
to its citizens is central and thus, “if the regime can incorporate its changed policies into its legitimizing narrative, then it
could agree to a negotiated settlement.” Genuine dialogue and a
willingness to transcend immediate political considerations in
seeking compromise have been lacking thus far and are essential
at this critical moment.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 31

STRIKING A BALANCE
IN SOUTH SUDAN
Atul Bhattarai

E

arly July last year, the world clamoured to celebrate the
birth of South Sudan after a protracted and bloody conflict
with its northern counterpart, Sudan. Despite wide
coverage in international media, the referendum that established
the world’s 193rd nation did little to address the most pressing
sources of conflict. As South Sudan’s independence approaches
its first anniversary, the central African country remains mired
in many problems, ranging from conflict over ill-defined borders
to internal ethnic violence that reportedly has killed thousands.
Resolving these problems demands active cooperation between
the governments of Sudan and South Sudan, a willingness to
make concessions toward security, and a vigorous effort from the
international community to ensure stability in the region.

THE ABYEI CRISIS
Formally a Sudanese region, Abyei is an ethnically diverse area
of South Kordofan province, slightly smaller than Connecticut,
which straddles the divide between Sudan and South Sudan.
Because of its location, Abyei is often inaccurately characterized
as oil-rich. Jonathan Temin, director of the Sudan program at the
United States Institute of Peace, explains that, “it used to have
decent amounts, but it has minimal reserves now.” Although oil
remains highly contested between the two Sudans, the current
impasse in Abyei has deeper origins.
Conflict over the area originated with the First Sudanese Civil

32 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

War that began during the 1950s, and since then both sides have laid
competing claims. The 2004 Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) stipulated that Abyei would be jointly administered by both
nations, pending the 2011 referendum. Temin tells the HPR that
regarding South Sudanese independence, “it seems they were
willing to let Abyei fly in favour of the larger referendum. The
international community was okay with that and let it happen.”
Deliberations over Abyei’s status became more muddled after
neither side could decide what individuals were eligible to vote.
Sudanese authorities pushed enfranchising the nomadic Missiri
while South Sudanese officials argued for more constrained
definitions of Abyei citizenship. Amid the gridlock, an U.N.backed agreement in September 2011 required both sides to
withdraw military forces from the region.
Abyei’s unresolved status represents a major struggle between
the Sudans and no clear solutions exist. The most logical path
forward to determining Abyei’s ownership, the referendum, has
effectively been eliminated, increasing tension and the threat of
military combat. Temin suggests three routes the conflict could
take: first, a popular referendum, second, a unilateral declaration
by either Sudan claiming Abyei, and third, the preservation of the
current nebulous status quo. However, a referendum would likely
be rife with disagreement over voting rights, and a unilateral
decision is politically impossible. Worst yet, Temin asserts,
maintaining the status quo, “would be a pretty lousy outcome for
the people who actually live in Abyei.”

WORLD

To preserve regional stability, South Sudan
must play its cards right, finding a means to
advance its interests without aggravating Sudan
and provoking military confrontation.

ETHNIC CONFLICT
Although ethnic conflict has dominated Sudanese landscape
for decades, the form it has taken over recent months in South
Sudan raises unique concerns. Like other communities mobilized
along ethnic boundaries, South Sudan’s population is comprised
of groups that nurture animosity towards each other, which has
traditionally entailed small cattle raids and minor skirmishes.
Since independence, the magnitude of violence has been
magnified, particularly in the Jonglei state where increased cattle
raiding and violence between the Dinka Bor, Murle and Lou Nuer
tribes Cattle has killed over 3,000 and driven 150,000 people from
their homes.
Identifying the source of the violence would help bring
stability to the ravaged region, but ethnic conflict is multifaceted
and difficult to resolve. John Campbell, a regional expert at the
Council on Foreign Relations, explains that resolving the issue
is particularly difficult when ethnic divisions form around
economic boundaries, as South Sudan is experiencing.
However, there is increasing evidence from discovered
weapons caches that ethnic violence in South Sudan has been
perpetrated and exacerbated by the Sudanese government in
Khartoum. Eric Reeves, a Professor at Smith College, pinpoints
this as a major concern, telling the HPR that, “these automatic
weapons have changed cattle raids into something much more
destructive.”
The current internecine violence underlies multiple struggles
taking place in greater Sudan. From economic hardship to
escalating tensions, the endemic conflict in South Sudan resulted
from many deep-seated issues that must be addressed gradually.
However, the violence and deaths stemming from ethnic
conflict demand immediate action. Campbell tells the HPR,
“The government of South Sudan must address ethnic issues by
reaching out to the disaffected minorities, and the international
community can mobilize itself to meet some of the humanitarian
needs of the people.” Temin adds that international efforts could,
“support the capacity of the government…to deliver services, and
support the UN mission in South Sudan.”

BLACK GOLD
For both Sudan and South Sudan, oil remains the single most
challenging issue on the political horizon. Currently, South

Sudan possesses approximately 80 percent of total oil reserves
between the two countries, despite the fact that only its northern
counterpart contains the refineries and oil pipelines necessary for
the processing and exportation of crude oil. Yet, even accounting
for logistical difficulties, South Sudan remains extremely
dependent on oil; over 90 percent of its revenues are oil exports.
According to Campbell, the international community had
expected the two nations to resolve the issues of oil infrastructural
cooperation and revenue sharing in advance of South Sudanese
independence. However, Sudan and South Sudan have yet to
establish a feasible system or pipeline rental arrangement.
Furthermore, the South Sudanese government has accused
Khartoum of stealing from its oil reserves, which Sudan justifies
as compensation for unpaid transit fees.
Consequently, South Sudan is seeking alternative methods for
exporting its oil. A deal was recently signed between South Sudan
and Kenya to construct a pipeline that would sidestep Sudan,
and plans to build an independent refinery are underway. “South
Sudan would have no trouble gaining international funding for
the project,” says Campbell. Although the deal could be a boon for
South Sudan, Khartoum fears a collapse of inflows to its refineries,
and might respond violently. Thus, to preserve regional stability,
South Sudan must play its cards right, finding a means to advance
its interests without aggravating Sudan and provoking military
confrontation.

THE WAY FORWARD
Despite having attained independence and international
recognition without plunging into full-scale conflict, South Sudan
hangs in a precarious balance. As unresolved problems like Abyei,
interethnic warfare, and oil arrangements with Sudan continue to
fester, the prospect of violence metastasizing looms, demanding
the full and absolute attention of South Sudan’s newly-christened
leadership. Resolving ethnic conflict without resorting to military
intervention that could exacerbate violence should be prioritized.
South Sudan has international support and should capitalize on
that to placate aggressors and aid civilian victims. After decades
of civil war, South Sudan cannot afford to become embroiled in
military confrontation with Sudan, and must proceed carefully
and diplomatically with its northern neighbor in advancing its
interests.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 33

WORLD

The Burmese Spring
Caitlin Pendleton and Nur Ibrahim

O

n November 13, 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi
emerged from her villa to greet supporters after seven years of house arrest. Emblematic of
Burma’s fledgling pro-democracy movement, Suu Kyi’s
release was hailed by the international community and
locals alike as a positive sign of change at a pivotal time
in Burmese history. Following a half century of authoritarian rule, the Burmese government has recently
begun what it insists is a transition from military junta
to democratic civilian government.
Many observers hope that Burma’s top-down revolution will be an alternative and comparatively peaceful model for governments grappling with the social
movements of the Arab Spring. But, any celebration of
a “Burmese Spring” would be preemptive. Suu Kyi has
declared that she will participate in upcoming April
parliamentary elections, which are seen as a major test
of the Burmese government’s dubious sincerity.

A BURMESE GOLDMINE

Aung San Suu Kyi is the General Secretary of the Burmese opposition party.

34 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

Suu Kyi now meets a Burma that is starkly different
from the one she knew before her release. Today, with
major investment from China and great strategic value,
Burma has a steadily growing economy, a wealth of oil
and minerals, and a burgeoning middle class of industrialists and businessmen.
This renewal of economic activity in Yangon holds
the possibility of major consequences for the military
regime. Anticipating that corresponding positive developments will lift foreign sanctions, the government
might steadily move away from its longtime economic
ally, China. Previously last October, President Thein
Sein surprisingly suspended the construction of a new
hydroelectric dam being developed jointly with the
China Power Investment Corporation. The dam’s construction created controversy when the BBC reported
that perhaps 90 percent of generated electricity would
go to China.
Donald Emmerson, director of the South East
Asia Forum at Stanford University, says that the dam
suspension represents a new model for a Burmese government concerned with reducing its dependency on
China. While China’s attempts to expand its economic
influence into Burma have been largely successful in
the past decade, the dam’s suspension is an important
signal from Burma. It behooves the Burmese military
to encourage Western investment by making political
concessions and diversifying the country’s economic
options. But, Emmerson explains to the HPR that this
pivot away from China and toward reforms could eventually endanger the military with, “a juggernaut that

WORLD

could destroy it. Opening the gates to investment and aid could
enrich the generals, but it could also spur the growth of a new
middle class that supports Aung San Suu Kyi and wants even
more reform.”

THE ETHNIC DILEMMA
According to David Steinberg, a Professor of Asian Studies at
Georgetown University, the oft-ignored issue of ethnic minority
rights represents the most fundamental challenge for presentday Burma. Since 1949, the Karen community has carried out
insurgencies in Burma’s hilly northern flank in response to its
marginalization by both civilian and military governments. Especially since the 1962 military coup, the Karen and other ethnic
minority groups have faced harsh discriminatory treatment from
generals in Yangon.
Despite many calls to end the violence, and a stipulation by
Suu Kyi that international embargoes should only be lifted once
a solution to ethnic conflict is realized, violence has broken out
again in the northern Kachin state. Conversely, recent months
have seen progress in the government’s policy toward the Karen,
as embodied in the declaration of a ceasefire in the longest ethnic rebellion of the modern era.

JOURNALISTIC FREEDOM AND POLITICAL PRISONERS
Despite talk about increasing channels for free speech, Burma’s advances in the realm of journalism have been among the
most superficial. Reporters Without Borders’ 2011-2012 World
Press Freedom Index ranked Burma 169 out of 179 nations,
among the ranks of Syria and North Korea. The report also notes
that while the government’s efforts to reduce censorship count
as improvements, Burma, “remain[s] largely under the control
of an authoritarian government run by former members of the
military junta, reinvented as civilian politicians.”
In a radical departure from previous state rhetoric, Tint Swe,
director of the Press Scrutiny and Registration Department,
suggested closing his own office this past September. However,
by late January, the Burmese government had abandoned Swe’s
proposed initiative, with local journalists reporting that the state
had returned to heavily censoring politically-sensitive news.
Ismael credited the Burmese government’s hypocrisy to more
than mere mendacity; instead, there is reason to believe there
no single opinion dominates the Burmese government. Citing a
familiar theme in democratization, Ismael asserts that focusing
on journalistic freedom reforms will enable and encourage improvements in other problematic elements of Burmese politics,
including ethnic conflicts and political prisoners.
For the time being, Reporters Without Borders has cautiously
welcomed the Burmese reforms, in full recognition that they are
incomplete.

Furthermore, although international observers heralded
Burmese policymakers for the granting of mass amnesty to 230
political prisoners last October and 651 political prisoners on
January 13, this is a small dent in a broader problem. According to the United Nations, more than 2,000 political prisoners
remain in military custody.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: AGENT OF TRUE CHANGE?
“Despite her international presence,” Emmerson continued,
“Suu Kyi’s ability to deepen and broaden reform should not be
exaggerated.” More specifically, even if she wins a parliamentary
seat her efforts to bring about change there could be outvoted
and overruled.
Burma’s constitution, controversially ratified in 2008 as part
of the military junta’s Roadmap to Democracy, guarantees a
certain number of seats for the military. With only 48 seats up
for grabs on April 1st and many already occupied by pro-military
parties, the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi’s party, will
fall far short of a majority, even if it wins every seat it contests.
“She will be balanced on a knife edge between cooptation as a
token reformer and isolation as a principled critic,” Emmerson
said. “If it appears that by cooperating with the government she
is giving up more than she gets, her supporters may have second
thoughts. She seems to trust President Thein Sein. How much
that trust is warranted remains to be seen.”

THE PATH FORWARD
U.S. and international response is crucial toward shaping the
future of Burma. According to Emmerson, there are three major
routes the international community can take: doing nothing,
dropping sanctions completely and normalizing relations, or
providing a measured response.
Europe and the U.S. have previously asserted that freeing political prisoners and reaching an agreement with ethnic
minorities are prerequisites for the removal of economic sanctions against Burma. After the recent mass amnesties, President
Obama authorized an easing of American economic sanctions
against Burma on February 8, but it was a limited move principally designed to allow Burma to acquire help from international
financial institutions like the World Bank.
On the diplomatic end, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
much-publicized visit to Burma in December has led to conversation about the appointment of a new U.S. ambassador to
Burma, a first since representation was downgraded to the level
of Charge d’Affaires in 1988.
Ultimately, it is worth noting that if Burma’s transition proves
successful, it would inspire reform in nations like Cambodia and
Laos rather than Middle Eastern countries involved in the Arab
Spring. But until its reforms are proven credible, Burma has little
chance of serving as a model for top-down revolution.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 35

Cory Pletan

ONCE UPON
A CAR

I

n his State of the Union address, President Obama proclaimed, “We bet on
American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American
auto industry is back.” President Obama has good reason to be optimistic.
Collectively, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler gained market share against foreign brands for the first
time since 1988. GM and Ford earned solid yearly profits, and even Chrysler posted a profit for the first time
in years. The domestic auto industry will be the feather in President Obama’s cap during the presidential
election as he defends himself against Republican attacks on government bailouts. The recent history of
the auto industry has been muddled by politics, and it has become increasingly difficult to uncover the real
story. Once Upon a Car: The Fall and Resurrection of America’s Big Three Auto Makers by Bill Vlasic, the
Detroit bureau chief for The New York Times, succeeds in putting aside politics and personal vendettas as it
tells the real story of the decline and recovery of the American auto industry.
The book begins in 2005. For over a decade, GM, Ford, and Chrysler had dominated the hugely profitable market for large pickup trucks and SUVs. However, the era of cheap gas and easy loans was coming
to an end. To make matters worse, the Big Three were slowly being suffocated by crushing health care

36 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

BOOKS & ARTS

and pension costs for its hundreds of thousands of current and
retired workers. These costs were sustainable in past decades
when the Detroit automakers had a majority share of the American auto market, but they could no longer afford to compete
with Asian automakers whose non-unionized workers cost $55
an hour instead of the $77 an hour that GM, Ford, and Chrysler
were paying in wages and benefits. There was a storm on the
horizon that the leaders of GM, Ford, and Chrysler failed to
anticipate.
Vlasic is at his best as he details GM and Chrysler’s spiral into
bankruptcy and Ford’s fight for its life from the perspective of
every group involved in an interwoven and fast-paced narrative.
The President of the United Auto Workers Ron Gettelfinger
garner’s sympathy as he passionately tries to preserve the way of
life enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of factory workers and retirees. Vlasic describes him as “both an idealist and a pragmatist,
a true believer waging a holy war and a hardheaded negotiator
determined to cut the best possible deal.” Interviews with longtime factory workers as they face the uncertainty of unemployment are particularly moving. Reading about Rebecca Oelfke, a
mother of two who supports her kids and disabled husband by
working at one of GM’s parts suppliers really injects a human
element into the whole tragedy and illuminates how important
the Big Three are to the economy of the United States.
Vlasic’s ability to integrate the perspectives of the many
stakeholders sets Once Upon a Car apart from other books
about the auto bailouts. Paul Ingrassia’s book Crash Course:
The American Automobile Industry’s Road to Bankruptcy and
Bailout-and Beyond provides a more extensive analysis of the
events and decisions that brought down the Big Three, but Once
Upon a Car is written in a more readable, fast-paced manner The
book feels like a novel rather than a nonfiction recollection of a
recent industrial calamity. In September 2010, Steven Rattner,
the car czar, released his own account of the auto bailout in his
book Overhaul. It is an interesting account, but it focuses almost
exclusively on the government’s role in the bailouts of GM and
Chrysler. And unlike Once Upon a Car, it does not really analyze
why the Big Three got into their precarious situations.
GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy court with clean
balance sheets and strong future product portfolios. GM got a
new CEO and management team, and its situation improved
to the point where it was able to have the largest IPO in U.S.
history in late 2010. Chrysler was incorporated into the Italian
automaker Fiat, where CEO Sergio Marchionne finally added
small fuel efficient cars to Chrysler’s lineup. Ford emerged from
the crisis better than ever. Alan Mulally had assembled a team of
executives who were completely dedicated to continuing Ford’s
success. Ford had a range of hot-selling vehicles such as the midsize Ford Fusion, the compact Ford Focus, and the rugged Ford
F-Series trucks which were competitive with the best vehicles
that Honda or Toyota had to offer. Times had definitely changed.
Several Republicans, with Mitt Romney being the most notable, have harshly criticized President Obama’s handling of the
auto bailouts. In fact, Romney published an op-ed in the Detroit
News on February 14, 2012 clarifying his position on the issue.
In the editorial, Romney attacks Obama’s decision to provide
$85 billion in bailout funds to GM and Chrysler before easing
them into accelerated bankruptcy. This claim is not completely
true because President Bush approved over $17 billion in bailout
funds near the end of his term. He also echoes many Republi-

cans’ criticisms by arguing that the Big Three should have been
left to enter bankruptcy with no government intervention.This
course of action would have been extremely risky. Hundreds of
thousands of jobs would have been lost from the closure of auto
dealerships, factories, and parts suppliers. Even more would
have been lost when the small business around the closed factories disappeared. In his op-ed, Romney said, “The president
tells us that without his intervention, things in Detroit would be
worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would
be better.” Maybe Romney and the other critics of the auto bailouts are right. It is possible that GM, Chrysler, and Ford could
have recovered without government intervention. But considering what was at stake, as Vlasic makes clear, it would have been
reckless to leave one of America’s most important industries in
such an uncertain condition.
No matter what your opinion on the auto bailouts, there is
no escaping the sense of optimism felt at the end of the book. By
the start of 2011, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were finally producing
cars that could compete against anyone else’s. Like a mythical
phoenix, the American auto industry had risen out of the ashes
of its near destruction and emerged stronger than ever. Everyone loves a comeback, and after reading Once Upon a Car and
watching the recent performance of the Big Three, it is clear
that President Obama is right. Detroit is back.

GM’s Renaissance Center Headquarters in Detroit.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 37

BOOKS & ARTS

A NATION DIVIDED
Ethan Loewi

E

ach era is defined by the great rivalries to which it
bears witness. Intractable, riveting clashes where neutrality is not an option, and the side you take reflects
not just your preference, but the contents of your soul.
In 21st century America, the fate-of-the-world-deciding-conflictdu-jour is even color-coded for convenience. It is, of course, that
trusty bichromatic bastard Red vs. Blue.
Every year, South Carolina based militiamen become more
wary of their Bible-burning neighbors to the north. The jokes
that New England dwelling college students make about Republicans grow snarkier. A tragic and totally one-sided civil war redux
seems inevitable: the gun-loving southerners will sidestep the
weakly-thrown iPhones that the college students are using for
weapons, mow them down with a few M-16 blasts, say a prayer
for their lost atheist souls, and America will be no more. Without a savior, this doomsday scenario could take place as soon as
President Paul’s third term. So praise be to Dante Chinni, James
Gimpel, and their new book, Our Patchwork Nation. The book is a
work of political geography that aims to free us from the shallow
and divisive tyranny of the red-state/blue-state map. Rather than
cram Americans into two boxes, Chinni and Gimpel have endeavored to cram us into 12.
By examining statistics such as income levels, immigrationemigration patterns, and age distribution, the authors have sorted
all of America’s 3,143 counties into one of 12 categories: “Industrial Metropolis,” “Evangelical Epicenters,” “Monied Burbs,”
“Minority Central,” and so on. These are tooled to reflect something like an ideal cross-section of the population and replace the
binary of red or blue with teal, orange, and magenta. The result
is, as promised, a “Patchwork Nation,” where an electoral map of
California is a dozen colors rather than just party-approved blue.
The pitch seems airtight and borderline utopian: anything that
is not Red vs. Blue is surely a step in the right direction, no? But
this new division of the country is open to a litany of criticisms,
and begs the more serious question of whether categorizing a
country of 307 million by any color scheme is inherently a fool’s
errand. Thus, Our Patchwork Nation enters choppy ideological
waters.
The book is structured to give a statistical and anecdotal snapshot of each of the 12 community types before reflecting on the

A work of political geography that aims to
free us from the shallow, divisive tyranny
of the red-state/blue-state map.
state of broad topics such as “politics” in light of the Patchwork
Nation framework. The snapshot chapters, the result of much
travel and investigation, are all interesting and well told in their
own right. For example, analysis of deep-seated racism in Baton
Rouge is a perfect opportunity for Chinni and Gimpel to show
off their respective skill sets. On the quantitative front, Gimpel’s
statistical work is extensive and often enlightening, particularly
when examining the distinct economic motivations behind community types like “Tractor Country” and “Boom Towns” distinct.
Qualitatively, Chinni’s prose is deft and efficient, perfect for bitesized storytelling. To capture the racial tension in Baton Rouge,
he describes two adjacent bars that are effectively segregated,
writing that “the M Bar isn’t the Wine Loft, and the main difference isn’t that martinis are the house specialty. Here, everyone
is black.”
Our Patchwork Nation is by no means an unpleasant read. Its
findings are approachable and probably educational to anyone at
all interested in demography. But the efforts of Chinni and Gimpel to concisely define all 12 communities lean on familiar archetypes of the very kind that the book aims to discredit such as
latte-sipping college students or small-town Christians who hate
to read anything but the Bible. Chinni and Gimpel seem hesitant to enter truly ambiguous ground, for fear of muddying their
12-type breakdown. Upon even brief examination, there are
hundreds of nitpicks to be raised with their rationale. Should
“Mormon Outposts” really be considered one of the 12 community types that make up the country? Why does Boulder County,
home to the University of Colorado, fall into the “Colleges and
Careers” category while Larimer County, a largely analogous
town home to Colorado State, fall into “Monied Burbs?” And
does California really have the only “Emptying Nest” community west of the Rockies? On these issues and many others, Our
Patchwork Nation comes off as arbitrary, confused, and overly
ambitious. Under the Chinni and Gimpel’s map, Cambridge falls
into the “Monied Burbs” category. While it is undeniably a place
of great affluence, Cambridge is also defined by its universities.
Why not place it in “Colleges and Careers?” And what of the

large contingent of homeless people that populate its streets?
In the case of Cambridge and many other places, the Patchwork
Nation framework is reductive in the worst way. To try and lock
Cambridge or any other town into one tidy category is to take
something hugely complex and make it brutishly simple, not unlike doing dental work with a jackhammer.
The book’s goal, to ride in on a rainbow-maned horse and
save us from the narrow-minded generalizations that are ripping
our country apart, is a noble one. But the foundation on which
their anecdotes and evidence rest ultimately proves unworthy
of their research. To learn more about what defines America is
an unequivocal good, and Chinni and Gimpel give our national
diversity in politics, economics, and culture its due. Still, their
dogged insistence on shoehorning it all into a color-coded map
only lends greater entrenchment to the notion that vast populations can and should be color-coded. Chinni and Gimpel fall all
over themselves to point out that “no place fits entirely into one
type,” but this only draws attention to the fact that their strong
investigative work is being forced to serve a troubled premise.
Constant apologies suggest flaws that are more than skin deep.
In both the book’s introduction and conclusion, the authors
write that “the principal aim of this project was to get beyond
the oversimplified red-state/blue-state model.” Regardless,
the Patchwork map is still profoundly oversimplified. And as
much as it seems like an improvement, there is still something
fundamentally unsettling about painting thousands of people
one color or the other. The red-state/blue-state map is, by all
accounts, a destructive and divisive monster. As the authors say
themselves, “We hate that map. In so many ways, it represents
a lie.” But rather than try to one-up that map, we should be attempting to do away with the ethos that led to its creation. The
irony is palpable. In their efforts to fight stereotypes, Chinni and
Gimpel have created a nuanced, thoughtful, and well-researched
set of stereotypes in their misdirected masterpiece. To its credit,
Our Patchwork Nation provides the best color-coded political
map on the market. That, however, is the very definition of faint
praise.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 39

BOOKS & ARTS

THE FIGURE OF
FIGARO
Rachel Wong

I

n the space of an hour, we have already seen a man with a crowbar, a cross-dressing pageboy,
and a string of attempted seductions. Act Three opens. As the music begins, a Count, sporting
a brocaded jacket with lace at his cuffs, walks solemnly onstage. He looks like he is about to
address the Vatican Council, but he sings, with a great deal of earnestness, “What a bitch of a
morning…” The audience jumps and bursts out into nervous laughter.
This year, the Dunster House Opera Society celebrated its twentieth birthday with a
polished and refreshingly colloquial interpretation of Mozart’s classic opera, The Marriage of
Figaro. For five nights in February, the House’s dining hall was filled with the music of a cast and orchestra made up entirely of undergraduates, whose goal was to present opera not just as art, but as accessible
entertainment.

A BREATHLESS ART
The set of Figaro, with all its embroidered upholstery, contrasted as much against the scheming, lustful, almost Oedipal relationships in the story as the words that came out of the refined Count’s mouth.
In Mozart’s opera, Figaro must outwit his master, Count Almaviva, in order to prevent him from seducing his bride-to-be. But this goal is not so easily met. First, the young pageboy Cherubino tries to seduce
every woman in his sight, even the Countess, before he is packed off to the military. Then, an old housekeeper appears with a contract that entitles her to Figaro’s hand in marriage, before she discovers that

40 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

BOOKS & ARTS

REVIEWING THE DUNSTER
HOUSE OPERA
Figaro is really her long-lost son. Trysts are arranged. Figaro’s
bride trades places with the Countess. When the Count finally
realizes that he has been had, having seduced his own wife, he
cries “Forgive me!” Everyone declares that they will be happy
thereafter, and the opera hurtles on to its heady conclusion.
“It’s not a love story,” says Elizabeth Leimkuhler ’15, who
played the reckless pageboy Cherubino. “It’s a collection of
flawed characters that you’re laughing at and laughing with.
The opera itself is a lot of slapstick comedy, and the audience is
always in on the joke.”
Leimkuhler, who saw Figaro years ago at New York’s Metropolitan Opera, recalls how she first fell in love with the lively,
flirtatious role of Cherubino. “It’s the perfect role to start out.
He’s a memorable and a lot of fun.” On stage, she wears a red
and yellow suit printed with ridiculous, Escher-like patterns.
We can nott help but imagine that she is an eleven-year-old boy,
swimming in pajamas that are just slightly too big for her. But
it’s her aerodynamic pixie cut, endlessly jumping eyebrows, and
the frightening velocity with which she flings herself around
the stage that really puts the part together. “In one of the arias,
there’s only about two bars when I’m not singing,” Leimkuhler
laughs, “And in those two bars, I’m doubled over the couch,
wheezing in the Countess’ face, trying to catch my breath.” She
adds, “It’s definitely physically demanding to have to run around
so much while singing – I had to hit the gym and be in shape!”
Eric Padilla ’14, who played Count Almaviva and has had six
years of experience in musical theatre, echoed Leimkuhler’s
thoughts on the demanding nature of the work, “I definitely
would not be able to perform in either musical theatre or opera
without the training I’ve had,” he observes. Even so, the Count’s
role was written for a much older singer: “While the part is in
my vocal range,” Padilla explains, “it requires a certain vocal
weight that I just don’t have yet because of my age.” He calls
Mozart’s highly ornamented melodies “crazy,” but loves them for
their beauty. “With directors as great as the ones for this show,”
Padilla concludes, “it was made possible.”

REKINDLING RELEVANCE
The directors, like the rest of the company, are undergraduates. Months before the show, Matthew Aucoin ’12 and Stewart
Kramer ’12 had begun looking for English translations of the libretto. “At some point,” Leimkuhler recounts, “they just realized
that what they were looking at wasn’t real. So they decided to
translate it themselves.” Aucoin, who is fluent in Italian, wanted
to create a more direct, down-to-earth interpretation. Especially
for an opera written over two centuries ago, bringing out the
humor of the piece was vital, explains Leimkuhler. She leans

forward. “I mean, people are going to laugh at sex jokes.”
Recently accepted into Harvard, Jake Wilder-Smith attended
one of the first performances and agrees that the translation
helped bridge the divide between audience and music. As an
opera singer himself, he admits, “There definitely is an elitist stigma on opera, especially more lately, but this is a perfect
example of the fact that it’s not. Everyone laughs at certain moments, and everyone can relate to the characters.”
When asked about the role that opera plays in today’s world,
Wilder-Smith pauses, and says, “It’s a beautiful art form.” Another audience member looked surprised at the question, “It’s
culture. It’s like how you need art history in order to understand
art. Opera can tell us a lot about the way pop music works.” Eric
Padilla commented on how the original play was banned by the
soon-to-be deposed Louis XVI of France. “I imagine the aristocracy was not completely pleased with Figaro at the time of its
premiere,” he says, “as it undermines the concept of their divine
right to power. Today, I feel it’s a period piece. While its position
on the aristocracy is still relevant, it’s not really controversial.”
Leimkuhler adds, “Plot is never important. Plots are never complicated. It’s all about the music.”
The work of this entirely undergraduate cast came together
in the dining hall of a dorm, but the effect was anything but amateur. “The cast, in addition to the staff, is absolutely brilliant,”
says Padilla. “Everyone is extremely professional and some of us
intend on pursuing professional careers in performance.”
“When I look at Dunster House Opera,” Leimkuhler says,
“it’s just a group of people trying to make opera more accessible. It’s a great community of people.” When asked about her
professional plans, she says, “My sister once gave me a picture,
probably taken in the 1920’s or 1930’s. It’s a view of the Met from
center stage. I just want to perform. I love singing, I love acting –
having people watch me while I do fun things on stage.”
After the last show, the company will stay in the dining hall
until the small hours of the morning as the set is dismantled.
“I’m small,” laughs Leimkuhler, “so I just pick up all the props
and everyone thinks I’m helping!” The next day, breakfast opens
as usual in Dunster House. There are no traces of the hilarity
and extraordinary musicality that had filled the hall just hours
ago. A glob of peanut butter splatters over the same patch of
floor that, just a while ago, had received the bending knee of a
great Spanish Count. A sophomore falls asleep over her organic
chemistry where, yesterday, Matthew Aucoin had conjured up
the first whisperings of the overture. Perhaps that’s the point:
a two hundred-year-old Mozart opera, sung by undergraduates
one tenth its age, in a space that houses the daily minutiae. It
cannot get more accessible than that.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 41

INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW: PETER THIEL
with Corinne Curcie

You have received a lot of attention for donating to the Seasteading Institutue, which seeks to
build small sovereign nations on artificial islands.
Could you explain why you see this as a worthwhile cause in terms of experimenting with
governments and societies?
Just like there is room for starting new companies, because
not all existing companies solve all the problems we need
to solve, there should also be some room for starting new
countries, new governments, and new communities because
not all existing communities are perfect. I was attracted by the
seasteading project because there is also a technological dimension to it. We need to somehow re-open the frontier, both
in technology and in terms of the areas we look at for people
to explore and develop.

Peter Thiel is the co-founder and former CEO of
PayPal. He also was an early investor in Facebook. He currently serves as president of Clarium
Capital.

As a successful investor in technology, you wield
a great amount of influence in that sector. How
do you see your role as an investor and that of
other investors in today’s market? How much
power do you and they have to combat the stagnation that you have been advocating against?
Technological progress is the key for the advanced countries.
The developing countries have a somewhat different story;
they can simply copy the West. But for the West—the United
States, western Europe, and Japan—to not remain stagnant,
we have to progress. Technology is the single most important
area for such progress. It can happen in the context of government, non-profits, big companies, or startup companies. The
largest area for progress involves people starting new technology ventures, and that’s where the whole ecosystem of venture capital exists. More importantly, the entrepreneurs who
create these businesses are such a critical part to the future.
Our challenge is to identify great businesses and find ones
that involve a powerful transformative way in which they will
take our civilization to the next level. My bias is to always tilt
it a little bit more in the direction of things that are not merely
incremental—but rather towards some technologies that are
going to be very big both as businesses and in terms of their
potential cultural, political, and economic impact.

How do you know the direction of a business
when the financial world is filled with so many
uncertainties?
We probably have invested in 140 technology companies over
the last 10, 12 years. We have looked back on how we thought
about these businesses at the time we invested. Whenever you
think of things as just being probabilistic or a lottery ticket,
you are setting yourself up for losing and not thinking. You
have to get yourself into a mindset where it is not a lottery
ticket at all, but it is as near a certain thing as it can possibly be. Do we think this technology really works? How does it
compare with what else is on the market? Are these people really
the people who can take this business and built it? You have to
be very honest in answering these questions, and you cannot
avoid them. Avoiding them ends up attributing more things to
chance. It is not simply a matter of luck, chance, or statistics.
I do not think that these companies are lottery tickets. There
is a great deal of scope for determinant planning in building
these businesses, and that’s what we set out to do.

What is the secret to a successful startup?
It is always unique. The important part of these businesses
is always unique. The question we ended up focusing a great
deal on is in fact this question of uniqueness. Is there something about this business where it is the only business of its kind
in the world? People are not looking at a variety of breakthrough technology areas. There are not that many people
looking at artificial intelligence, next generation biotechnology, robotics. If it is possible, if things can be technically done
in those areas, they tend to be very promising.
This interview is edited and condensed.

42 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW: CEMIL ÇIÇEK
with Alpkaan Celik

lead this challenging path to democracy in the
Middle East?
Turkey has ancient historical and cultural ties to the Middle
Eastern and African nations, which has been reinforced for
generations. In Turkey, the process of enlightenment took
place much earlier than those countries. We have a history of
200 years of democratization and modernization. Democracy
is not an easy target to reach. It requires social and political struggles. Now, most of the Middle East is experiencing
this important process, and we cannot say that Turkey is not
inspiring those countries on their way to democracy. Furthermore, Turkey, although it is an Islamic country, is still a
secular state, and achieved to separate the religious issues
from the affairs of the state. I believe that this can present a
valuable example to other Islamic nations.

Cemil Çiçek has served as the Ministry of Justice
and the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey. Çiçek
is the incumbent President of Turkish Grand
National Assembly.

Western observers have noted that Turkey has
shifted its diplomatic focus away from Europe
and is strengthening its ties to the Middle East.
Do you think there is an emerging paradigm shift
in Turkish diplomacy?
Turkey is in a very significant geopolitical position on the
crossroads between Asia and Europe. Historically, Turkey
has always tried to keep good relations with both sides. Yet
the region around Turkey is full of security problems, as well
as social and economic problems. The abundance in natural
resources makes these problems even worse. We have been
trying to lead a peaceful policy in a region full of landmines.
Our leader Ataturk’s eternal words, “Peace at home, peace
in the world,” summarize Turkey’s national policy perfectly.
Consequently, Turkey’s focus still faces both the west and the
east. On both directions, we are trying to minimize the social
and economic problems of the region using peaceful negotiations.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, a “Turkish Model” to guide the Arab countries to democracy has
been discussed. How do you think Turkey can

In terms of both national and international affairs, where do you imagine Turkey a decade
from today?
Turkey is dynamic country that also became a regional power
in its area. Now, we are world’s 16th largest and Europe’s 6th
largest economy. Recently our economic growth rates are in
record levels. While Europe is in the midst of a crisis, we continue our steady economic growth. These data let us talk more
optimistically about Turkey’s future. Turkey has changed
drastically in the last 10 years, and we expect a similar largescale change in the next 10 years. As 2023 is the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic, we want to honor this day by
becoming one of the top ten economies of the world by then.
Likewise, we aim to increase our export levels to 500 billion
dollars, which is three times larger than the current levels.
Also, we want to reinforce human rights in the country by our
new constitution, and increase the rate of literacy to nearly
100%. When we make all of these things happen, Turkey will
become a country known not by its problems, but by the creative solutions we brought to those problems.

Finally, what is the secret behind a successful life
in politics?
Like in any other career, the keys to success in politics are patience and persistence. If you are conducting politics against
the public, you will end up alone. However, if your goal is truly
to serve the people, then you will eventually rise in the political world.
This interview is edited and condensed. The original interview
was conducted in Turkish, and then translated into English by
the interviewer.

SPRING 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 43

ENDPAPER

GOP AND MAN
AT HARVARD
Chris Danello

Oh. I see. Uh huh.
It’s a comment that almost never fails
to draw response.
Hmm. I didn’t know. Well, that explains
a lot.
No matter how I frame the point, the
reaction ranges from shock to incredulity.
Really? Seriously? You actually mean it?
You see, dear reader, I have a startling
confession to make. I am a Republican.
How can you be so smart and so dumb?
(I was particularly proud of that last one.)
Conservatives are, perhaps, the
most exotic species at Harvard. As early
as 1701, a group of Congregationalist
ministers, worried that the university was
growing insufficiently lax, quit the school
in protest and promptly founded Yale.
Richard Nixon enjoyed denouncing the
faculty as “the Kremlin on the Charles.”
And, indeed, this place’s reputation is
often well deserved. One of the more
traumatic memories of freshman year
was my having to explain to a political
philosophy section why I was, apparently,
the only student to agree with Edmund
Burke.
Yet the image of Harvard as a
hotbed of wild revolutionaries is often
an overstated one. To my immense
disappointment, I have only met one
avowed Communist over my four years.
The vast majority of Democrats on this
campus are almost disappointingly
moderate in their politics. And
Republicans, though a substantial

44 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2012

minority, stand far more numerous
than they could be. As a graduate of
a Washington, D.C. high school, I am
shocked that more than one conservative
per year is allowed.
Still, I write not to bury Ivy League
conservatism, but to praise it. For it seems
to me that Harvard conservatives enjoy
substantial benefits to which their liberal
friends have no recourse. The school’s
political culture, one-sided as it may be,
serves to sharpen those on the right and
enfeeble those on the left. The reasons for
these are several.
Liberals live in a cocoon.
Conservatives enjoy no such protection.
A Democrat can pass through four years
without hearing a dissenting viewpoint.
A Republican can scarce do the same
for a day. There are certain conservative
principles that I feel more confident
about, having had to defend them some
dozens of times. There are some others
that I abandoned, finding them unable to
withstand the assault.
Conservatives learn to appreciate the
nuance of their opponents’ positions.
This is, to be sure, not always a helpful
thing. One of the responsibilities of an
editor of the Harvard Political Review is
to read their writers’ articles and muster
all possible objections to the thesis. One
of the first times I did so, my writer had
written an article with which I largely
agreed. Unfortunately, my objections
from the left proved so sufficiently close

to the real article. The author promptly
agreed with me and began revising the
article in that direction.
Most of all, Republicans learn the
value of selectivity. Most of my friends
probably dispute my politics. Were I to
constantly emphasize that disagreement,
however, we would find each other’s
company intolerable. It’s often fun, and
important, to talk politics. But being in
an environment where an opinion means
a fifteen-minute debate has taught me
judiciousness too.
Now, I should emphasize that the
vast majority of Harvard liberals I know
are thoughtful and sincere in their
beliefs. And conservatives are not free of
stereotypes either. I have one Republican
friend with whom conversations often
revolve around our mutual admiration of
Brooks Brothers. Still, Republicans often
state that competition promotes superior
outcomes. It is tremendously gratifying to
be able to note that Harvard’s ideological
marketplace proves that point.
In closing, I offer a challenge to those
readers who disagree with the politics
of the writer. Take time to test the
assumptions under which you suffer. Seek
out the viewpoints of those opposed to
you. And have no fear of any Republican’s
opinions, Harvard-variety or otherwise.
We may think different. But we think
Right.